Immigration courts deny over 3,500 claims without full hearings

Immigration courts across the United States have denied more than 3,500 asylum claims in the past year without holding a full hearing on the merits. Researchers Amelia Frank-Vitale and Lauren Heidbrink documented these procedural removals in 107 courtrooms spanning 13 states and Puerto Rico. Their observation period included proceedings in Newark, New Jersey.

The authors, who wrote the book Dismantling Due Process: The Rise of Procedural Removal in U.S. Immigration Courts, describe a pattern where the government dismisses cases based on preliminary paperwork. This practice, known as pretermission or early denial, directs immigration judges to find applicants ineligible for relief before any testimony or evidence is presented. Judges make these decisions without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond or present their case.

Frank-Vitale and Heidbrink cited a specific case in a Miami immigration court involving a Nicaraguan man. A Department of Homeland Security attorney moved to dismiss his case during a preliminary hearing. The judge granted the motion, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested the man in the hallway. The researchers noted that while they did not know the specific reason for his asylum claim, Nicaragua has recently targeted political dissidents with increased brutality. The man was sent to detention and possibly to a country he had not previously visited.

Third-country agreements have contributed to these early denials. In a Santa Ana courtroom, a Guatemalan asylum seeker was ordered deported to Ecuador after a judge questioned her safety there. The woman stated she had never been to Ecuador and did not know anyone there. The judge argued that if she had never been there, she could not know she would not be safe. The court ordered her deportation before considering why she fled Guatemala.

The researchers observed that some judges, including former DHS prosecutors appointed during the Trump administration, expressed frustration with the process. In informal conversations, judges lamented that applicants often appeared without understanding the proceedings or having a practical chance to present their cases. The judges described their role as administering predetermined removal decisions rather than weighing protection claims independently.

A recent change in venue has further limited public access to these proceedings. While immigration courts are generally open to the public, hearings are now taking place in unmarked office buildings far from official courtrooms. These locations are off-limits to attorneys and observers. Frank-Vitale and Heidbrink described these clandestine courts as a strategy to make the legal process harder to access and observe.

Congress holds the authority to adjudicate immigration matters through the Department of Justice. The authors argue that Congress can establish an independent court, create a public defender program, and provide a full hearing to those whose cases were ended prematurely. The Supreme Court may eventually rule on the lawfulness of these practices, but the researchers said Congress does not need to wait for that decision to act.