U.S. Immigration Courts

Impacts, realities, and pathways to stronger legal practice.

Written by Michelle L. Saenz-Rodriguez

nurse and elder patient

The nation’s immigration courts are straining under unprecedented caseloads, revealing a system pushed to its structural limits. From the lenses of practicing immigration lawyers, America’s immigration courts are buckling. Rapidly changing policies, case completion requirements, and long-standing resource gaps are creating a system that may be at a breaking point for the first time in history.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is the official name of the agency that houses the nation’s immigration courts. It has two levels of review, the first being the local immigration courts that have sites all over the United States and Immigration Adjudication Centers (IAC), which are strictly remote or virtual courts. Together they are known as the trial courts or lower courts. Secondly, there is an appellate level of the court system known as the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) located in Falls Church, Virginia. All appeals from the lower courts nationwide go through the BIA before any litigation can be filed in the federal circuit courts.

CURRENT COURT STRUCTURE
At present, there are more than 600 immigration judges that preside over 73 immigration courts and three adjudication centers.¹ The number of appellate judges that sit at the BIA is substantially less. The latest information put out by EOIR indicates that there are 13 permanent members and seven temporary members.²

The immigration courts are part of the executive branch housed within the Department of Justice. Unlike Article III judges, they are administrative law judges and do not have life tenure or salary protection. All the proceedings in immigration courts are treated as civil administrative proceedings and do not decide any criminal matters related to immigration proceedings. Moreover, the U.S. attorney general can issue decisions that are binding on the immigration court, calling into question the true independence of the courts. Advocates and the National Association of Immigration Judges have long sought reorganization and the creation of an independent Article III court. A major distinction from Article III courts is that respondents in immigration proceedings have no right to appointed counsel, even when indigent—a gap that is especially troubling in a system defined by complex law and life-altering consequences. This is especially true for the most vulnerable populations, especially children (some as young as toddlers), people who are detained, as well as those who may be traumatized after escape from their homeland. For example, tens of thousands of unaccompanied children have been forced to appear in court without representation.³ Others are located in areas where there is a critical shortage of attorneys and access to legal counsel, sometimes referred to as “legal deserts.”

CASELOAD STATISTICS
The current caseload for all immigration courts is estimated at 3.4 million cases.⁴ Texas immigration courts are among the nation’s busiest, with more than 400,000 pending cases statewide—second only to Florida’s backlog of over 500,000.⁵ Dallas and San Antonio carry the heaviest dockets at nearly 200,000 and just over 100,000 cases, respectively.⁶ Continued shifts in asylum and removal procedures are driving these numbers higher and forcing courts to continually recalibrate their operations.

KEY FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE “BUCKLING”
The historic number of pending cases is a factor in the disruption of the immigration courts; however, other significant factors are eroding the courts’ capacity to manage dockets effectively.

Other factors include technological and operational gaps, which include the heavy reliance on dated systems that have been slow to fully transition into the ECAS (electronic filing) system.⁷ Many courts still operate using paper records of proceedings (ROPs), which require all filings to be submitted on paper and slowing down the entire system. Moreover, challenges remain in digital access for respondents in remote hearings, translation services, and overall equipment failures during the remote hearing process.

There has also been a myriad of policy memos within EOIR that have been either canceled or reinstated during the last nine months, making it difficult for practitioners to navigate the latest requirements. These same changes have also resulted in the exponential expansion of the detained dockets.⁸

CONSEQUENCES FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS
The consequences of testing the courts’ structural integrity are the challenges it creates for lawyers and their clients. The primary concern for most lawyers is due process for their clients. The backlogs have created compressed timelines for hearings, making it difficult to secure evidence and witnesses, including expert testimony, which is a powerful tool in asylum cases.

The current state of the courts also has had a significant impact on vulnerable populations. Survivors of trafficking, domestic violence, and persecution are having a hard time securing private counsel and having to appear pro se. Statistics clearly show that represented respondents are more likely to prevail in immigration proceedings. For non-detained respondents, the difference is especially stark: Unrepresented individuals were more than 2.5 times as likely to be ordered removed than those with representation.⁹ Overall, representation also correlates with procedural and systemic benefits—represented respondents are more likely to appear for hearings, less likely to receive in-absentia removal orders, more likely to file applications for relief, and court proceedings tend to be more efficient (fewer frivolous claims, better prepared cases, and fewer continuances).¹⁰

Because representation so strongly influences both outcomes and courtroom efficiency, practitioners must also remain attentive to the ethical and professional obligations that govern their work. The complexity of the law, changes in policy, and rapidly changing legal precedent highlight the importance of legal competency under American Bar Association and state bar ethics rules. This creates a heightened risk for ineffective assistance claims. It also requires the duty to communicate realistic timelines and outcomes to clients.

Coupled with these ethical imperatives is the unavoidable reality that immigration practitioners work under considerable systemic and personal stress. Removal defense is complicated and emotionally draining work for most lawyers. There is a high burnout risk for those who are constantly facing new obstacles with real consequences for their clients. This underscores the ongoing need for strong mentorship, supervision, and a supportive professional network, along with awareness of available self-care resources.

PATHWAYS TO STRENGTHENING LEGAL SERVICES
As the courts continue to operate under extraordinary pressure, strengthening the quality of legal services will depend on targeted improvements that enhance efficiency, modernize tools, and support the practitioners who hold the system together. The goal should be to find ways to implement efficient systems without compromising due process. The agency can invest in technology that includes modernizing case management systems and improving remote hearing procedures that provide better access to the respondents. In addition, professional development and training can help lawyers in the practice keep up with the sweeping changes in law and policy. Encouraging mentorship pipelines can strengthen the support for new lawyers entering the immigration practice. Enhancing the importance of trauma-informed and culturally competent advocacy is also a critical skill set that is especially necessary in immigration practice.

Even so, lawyers will still need to develop individualized best practices to navigate the system as it exists today. However, a few core practices can help make the system more manageable—conducting early case assessments, building strong factual records despite delays or compressed timelines, using technology for client communication and evidence gathering, and maintaining meticulous calendars amid unpredictable resets and shifting deadlines.

CONCLUSION
The immigration court backlog is a structural challenge. Immigration attorneys play a vital role in safeguarding due process and elevating the quality of representation. Ultimately, a better system strengthens the integrity of the legal practice.

Justice Evan A. Young MICHELLE L. SAENZ-RODRIGUEZ is a co-founder of Saenz-Rodriguez & Associates in Dallas and certified in immigration and nationality law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. She has more than three decades of experience practicing immigration and nationality law, with an emphasis on litigation in immigration courts and complex humanitarian relief. Saenz-Rodriguez serves on the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Executive Committee as treasurer and is also an adjunct professor at SMU Dedman School of Law.