SSA Administrative Law Judge

Hon. Enrico Alis

On record 3,601 decisions since 2016

Hearing scheduled?

Free Benefits Review

Approval rates

Comparing approval rates requires looking at data from the same period to ensure accuracy. While Enrico Alis holds a 61% lifetime approval rate, his latest-period performance shows a 66% approval rate, which aligns with the Oakland office average. These figures are derived from a significant volume of cases, providing a reliable statistical baseline. Aggregate rates describe past decisions, not predictions for your individual hearing.

Lifetime SSA records since 2016
Approval rate 61%
Decisions on record 3,601
Latest SSA reporting period July 31, 2026
Metric Judge Alis Oakland National
Approval rate 66% 66% 58%
Fully favorable 52%
Denials 34%

Office- and national-level breakdowns of fully favorable vs denial rates aren't currently published by SSA in the per-office disposition data. The judge's own breakdown is the detail we have today.

Approval rate over time

Year-over-year approval rate across Judge Alis's docket. Annual rates fluctuate with the mix of cases SSA assigns; the longer-run pattern is more informative than any single year.

Judge Alis
0%20%40%60%80%100%FY16FY26
Source: SSA OHO disposition data. Approval rate (SSA's term: allowance rate) = fully favorable + partially favorable decisions divided by total decisions, which exclude dismissals.

Decision pattern

The record for Enrico Alis spans from 2016 to 2026, showing a steady pattern of approvals. After starting with rates in the mid-50s, the approval frequency trended upward, reaching 66% in the most recent reporting period. This latest figure represents a continuation of his established decision-making history. The recent data suggests a stable approach to evaluating your disability evidence.

Preparing for an SSDI hearing

The guidance below applies to any SSDI hearing, not specifically to Judge Alis's bench. Judge-specific preparation guidance requires a corpus of public Appeals Council decisions involving each judge, which we haven't built yet.

  • Bring a clean treating-physician record. Longitudinal primary-care or specialist notes spanning the disability period, with consistent symptom documentation, are typically the strongest evidence at hearing. A single month's records usually aren't enough.
  • Don't rely on consultative exams alone. If your medical evidence is built primarily around a one-time CE finding, expect detailed questioning. Supplement with treating-source statements where possible.
  • Prepare for daily-activity questions. Have honest, specific answers about a typical day. Answers that conflict with the medical record (in either direction) tend to hurt credibility.
  • Expect transferable-skills probing. A vocational expert will usually testify about jobs available to someone with your limitations. Your representative should be prepared to cross-examine.

Hearing scheduled?

Free 2 minutes Confidential

About the Oakland hearing office

The Oakland hearing office serves you throughout the region, operating as a critical hub for disability adjudications in California. The office maintains a bench of 16 judges on record, with a latest-period approval rate of 66%. You can expect a formal hearing process focused on the medical and vocational evidence presented in your file. You can see the Oakland Hearing Office page for the full ALJ roster.

Other judges at this hearing office

The SSA assigns cases using a workload-balancing algorithm, meaning the judge you are assigned is essentially random. At the Oakland office, there are 16 judges on record since 2016, 6 of whom are reported in the latest SSA period. Approval rates across this bench vary significantly, ranging from 26% to 84% on lifetime records. The office's performance provides a broad context for your hearing.

Approval rates change with a lawyer

WITHOUT A LAWYER
baseline approval rate
Unrepresented claimants
WITH A LAWYER
~3×
higher approval rate
Represented claimants

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-18-37. The 3× gap is a population-wide average across all judges; individual outcomes vary.

Frequently asked questions