English 
Português 
Español 
The United States immigration court system is going through a moment of historic strain. Mass dismissals of judges, a shrinking bench amid a backlog exceeding 3.5 million cases, and reports of pressure to issue decisions aligned with political directives raise a central question: how much independence remains in the court that decides deportations, asylum claims, and status adjustments?
The controversy matters to every immigrant with an open case, every immigration attorney, and every sponsoring employer. Understanding how the Executive Office for Immigration Review works, what the legal status of administrative judges is, and what is at stake for due process is essential for anyone who depends on this system in 2026.
What Is the EOIR
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is the federal body responsible for adjudicating immigration cases in the United States. Unlike regular federal courts, the EOIR is not part of the Judiciary: it falls under the Department of Justice and ultimately answers to the Attorney General. That subordination is the starting point of every discussion about judicial independence in this space.
The EOIR operates two main bodies. Immigration Courts scattered across the country hear removal, asylum, cancellation of removal, and defensive adjustment of status cases at the trial level. Above them, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, reviews decisions and issues binding precedents. BIA rulings can be appealed to the federal circuit courts — only at that stage does the traditional Judiciary enter the picture.
Administrative Judges, Not Constitutional Ones
Despite the title, immigration judges are not magistrates appointed under Article III of the Constitution. They are administrative law judges hired by the Department of Justice, who can be disciplined, transferred, and dismissed by the executive branch. A newly sworn-in immigration judge enters a probationary period of up to two years, during which they can be let go without formal cause and without the same administrative appeal rights afforded to tenured civil servants.
This institutional design has always generated debate. Unions such as the National Association of Immigration Judges, now affiliated with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), have advocated for decades for transforming the EOIR into an independent court — a model known as an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court. Without that reform, judges’ vulnerability to political pressure remains structural.
A Backlog of 3.5 Million Cases
The accumulation of pending cases at the EOIR has reached unprecedented levels. Data from TRAC Immigration at Syracuse University show a backlog exceeding 3.5 million cases at the start of 2026, with average wait times between the initial hearing date and a final decision exceeding four years in many courts. Tribunals such as the one in Chelmsford, Massachusetts, lost more than half their judges in a matter of months, deepening the crisis.
The cascading effect is direct: families awaiting asylum hearings go years without a decision, Special Immigrant Juvenile children age out before their cases are reviewed, and sponsoring employers face prolonged uncertainty in cases tied to an I-485 pending before the EOIR. The backlog also weakens the government’s capacity to remove those who genuinely have no right to remain, creating a system that simultaneously fails to protect and to enforce the law.
The Dismissals and What They Signal
Between late 2025 and early 2026, at least seventeen immigration judges were dismissed across different states, many still within their probationary period. Public accounts gathered by outlets such as NBC and Reuters point to a recurring pattern: termination without formal justification, frequently following decisions viewed as favorable to asylum seekers or contrary to the accelerated-removal policies championed by the Department of Justice.
Dismissed judges describe having received instructions on how to rule on motions to dismiss filed by ICE attorneys, and report pressure to grant those motions even when the respondent had presented plausible grounds for defense. In parallel, more than a hundred other judges resigned voluntarily, citing incompatibility between their ethical obligations and the institutional environment. The national bench, which stood at nearly seven hundred judges at the start of 2025, fell to around five hundred and eighty by 2026.
Due Process at Stake
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Supreme Court, in decisions such as Mathews v. Eldridge and Reno v. Flores, extended parts of those protections to noncitizens in removal proceedings, albeit with nuances. The right to a hearing before an impartial judge, to present evidence, and to retain counsel at one’s own expense is secured by statute and by case law.
When judges perceive or face pressure to issue decisions aligned with administrative targets, due process is weakened — not necessarily in any individual ruling, but in the aggregate, by shaping incentives. Immigrants feel this in practice: more requests for continuances via change of venue, a greater search for attorneys specializing in BIA appeals, and increased resort to habeas corpus in federal courts.
What Changes for Those in Proceedings
Immigrants with scheduled hearings should observe three basic precautions. First, appear at every hearing, including master calendar hearings: failure to appear results in an in absentia removal order, immediately enforceable by ICE. Second, track case status through the EOIR Automated Case Information system (1-800-898-7180 or the portal at acis.eoir.justice.gov), because judge reassignments have been frequent. Third, consider retaining counsel accredited by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, especially in asylum, cancellation of removal, and defensive adjustment cases.
When a trial-level decision is unfavorable, the deadline to appeal to the BIA is thirty calendar days. An appeal to a federal circuit — First, Second, Fifth, Ninth Circuit depending on jurisdiction — must be filed within thirty days of the BIA’s final decision and typically requires an attorney experienced in petitions for review. Mandamus actions and habeas corpus petitions in district court are additional avenues when there is unreasonable administrative delay or detention without review.
The Institutional Path Forward
Legislative proposals to create an EOIR independent from the Department of Justice have circulated in Congress for years. The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act, reintroduced in 2024, proposes transforming the tribunals into an Article I court, with fixed terms for judges, a bar on hierarchical pressure, and a governance structure analogous to that of the U.S. Tax Court. With no approval to date, the current model remains in place — and with it, the vulnerability of judges to political cycles.
For immigrants, attorneys, and employers who depend on the system, vigilance over due process has become part of the strategy. Documenting everything, maintaining qualified legal representation, and following public reports from TRAC, AILA, and the American Bar Association are practices that gained weight in 2026 and will likely remain central until the EOIR consolidates structural reforms.
Victoria Harper
Editor-in-Chief
Leading journalism and editorial content at Visto n’ Visa, Victoria helps make immigration topics clear, trustworthy, and easy to understand. Her focus is on delivering useful, human, and relevant content for people exploring new paths abroad.
