Status as of October 14, 2026. An October 13 Bloomberg Law investigation found that immigration judges newly appointed to permanent positions denied 49% of the asylum applications they handled from October 2025 through August 2026. Longer-serving judges denied 41% over the same period. These are findings from a news organization's analysis of government records, not a new asylum rule or an official DOJ finding about individual judges.

For people seeking asylum in U.S. immigration court, the judge hearing their case has become an increasingly important part of the national debate over outcomes. A Bloomberg Law investigation published October 13 found an eight-percentage-point difference in asylum denial rates between newly appointed permanent judges and judges already serving before President Donald Trump's second term. The study adds a new comparison to an already documented decline in asylum grants.

What Bloomberg's investigation found

Bloomberg Law analyzed immigration court data compiled by the California nonprofit Mobile Pathways. Its comparison covers October 2025 through August 2026, using decisions available as of September 23 and judges appointed through July 29. The report says information on judges who joined in August and September remains limited.

  • 49%: the share of asylum applications denied by new permanent immigration judges during the comparison period.

  • 41%: the corresponding denial share among judges who were already on the bench.

  • 2%: the asylum approval share Bloomberg reported for new appointees.

  • 3%: the overall asylum grant share Bloomberg reported in its broader measure, down from 17% in January 2025.

These figures describe different measures and populations. The 49% and 41% figures compare denial outcomes by judicial appointment group over a defined period. The overall 3% grant figure uses a broader set of asylum dispositions and should not be subtracted from 100 to calculate a denial rate.

Why a 3% grant rate does not mean 97% denials

The distinction is visible in EOIR's official asylum-decision statistics. For the first three quarters of fiscal year 2026, through June, the Justice Department listed 7,231 asylum grants and 89,740 denials among 254,680 total recorded outcomes. The same table separately counted 92,081 abandoned applications, 44,062 not adjudicated, 18,251 withdrawn and 3,315 administratively closed.

Grants therefore made up about 2.8% of the total in that earlier official reporting period, but denials made up about 35.2%, not 97%. Bloomberg's analysis covers a different period and groups of judges, so the EOIR table is useful for understanding the categories, not for independently reproducing Bloomberg's precise comparisons.

Other analyses can produce different approval or denial percentages because they use different dates and denominators, such as cases decided on the merits rather than every recorded outcome. A single national percentage is not an individual applicant's probability of success.

What may be driving the difference?

Bloomberg reported that the administration has brought in nearly 400 temporary and permanent immigration judges since October 2025, while roughly 200 judges left or were dismissed. It also found that at least 180 of the recruits had military legal or other military backgrounds. The report said new permanent appointees issued removal orders in 79% of cases in a separate comparison through late July, versus roughly 74% for judges appointed before January 2025.

Those comparisons do not, on their own, prove why the results differ. The case mix matters: former judges interviewed by Bloomberg noted that permanent judges may be assigned more often to detained cases, where the available forms of relief and case circumstances can differ. Appointment date is also not evidence that any particular decision violated the law.

Immigration lawyers quoted by Bloomberg raised concerns about accelerated decisions and asylum applications rejected without a full evidentiary hearing. The Justice Department defended its hiring of legal professionals and said reducing the immigration-court backlog remained a major priority. Neither position substitutes for an assessment of an individual case record.

What the numbers mean for asylum applicants

Bloomberg's findings document differences between groups of judges at a time when asylum outcomes and court staffing are changing rapidly. They do not announce a new eligibility requirement, automatically invalidate rulings or show that every asylum seeker faces the same result.

Factum Immigration previously reported on judge departures, court restructuring and earlier asylum-outcome data. The new contribution from Bloomberg is the direct comparison between newly appointed permanent judges and their longer-serving counterparts. Whether a specific applicant qualifies for asylum continues to depend on the governing law, supporting evidence and procedural history of that case.

Frequently asked questions

Does a 3% asylum grant rate mean 97% of cases were denied?

No. A grant rate measured across all recorded asylum outcomes is not the same as a denial rate. Other outcomes include abandoned, withdrawn, administratively closed and not-adjudicated applications.

Are judges appointed under Trump required to deny asylum?

The Bloomberg Law analysis measures past decisions; it does not establish that any individual judge is legally required to deny a claim. Asylum eligibility and procedural requirements still turn on the applicable law and the facts of each case.

Does this analysis predict what will happen in my asylum case?

No. These are aggregate historical figures, not odds for a particular applicant. Outcomes depend on the individual case, evidence, relevant law, procedural posture and the court hearing it.

Official sources

The EOIR document below is official government data. The appointment-group comparisons and interviews come from Bloomberg Law's independent investigation, which used EOIR records assembled by Mobile Pathways; Bloomberg's underlying judge-by-judge calculations are not an official DOJ statistical release.

Disclaimer: Factum Immigration provides general information, not legal advice. For guidance on an individual case, consult a licensed immigration attorney.