GENEVA - The mass arbitrary removal of immigration judges and continued politicisation of immigration courts in the United States must stop, UN experts* said today.
Since January 2025, information indicates that at least 135 judges (consisting of at least 113 immigration judges, 13 assistant chief immigration judges, and nine appellate immigration judges) have been terminated. The removals have reportedly occurred without cause or individualised explanation.
"These patterns raise serious concerns that immigration judges are being targeted on the basis of their perceived political affiliation, professional background or adjudicative record," the experts said.
They noted that the data collected shows distinct trends. Among the 78 removed immigration judges for whom there is available public data, 65 judges had a higher asylum grant rate than the national average or the average of their specific court. Judges with professional experience in immigrant defense or humanitarian advocacy were disproportionately removed, as well as judges appointed during the previous presidential administration. Only one judge appointed by a Democratic administration reportedly remains on the Board of Immigration Appeals. More than half of the probationary judges appointed in April and July 2023 have been terminated.
"These removals undermine the independence of the immigration courts and the larger justice system, and their consequences are immediate and severe," the experts said. "Immigration judges decide cases involving some of the most consequential issues, including whether a person faces persecution, torture or other irreparable harm if removed."
"When judges cannot act independently and impartially, foreign nationals are deprived of a meaningful opportunity to present their claims and objections to removal, with potentially irreversible consequences."
The experts recalled that the United States has undertaken international obligations prohibiting refoulement, including under article 3 of the Convention against Torture; articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention - binding on the US through its ratification of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
They also expressed concern that the Executive Branch is transforming the immigration court system from a forum for independent, individualised adjudication into an instrument for implementing deportation objectives.
"Judges must be able to perform their duties free from intimidation, harassment or retaliation," the experts said. They pointed out that while the mass removals were happening, the Department of Justice issued more than 50 policy memoranda, including several that warn judges of potential disciplinary consequences for 'slow' or 'biased' adjudication.
"The use of 'mega' master calendar hearings, where one judge may preside over hundreds of respondents during a single half-day session, also makes individualised adjudication impossible," the experts said.
"International law is clear. Foreign nationals facing deportation to a threat of torture, persecution, or death must be able to present their case in front of an independent and impartial body. Efficiency cannot justify the erosion of due process," they said.
The experts have communicated their concerns to the U.S. Government.
