UN Experts Urge End to Dismissals of Immigration Judges in the U.S.
GENEVA – United Nations experts have called for an immediate halt to the arbitrary mass dismissals of immigration judges in the United States and the ongoing politicization of immigration courts. Their statement underscores the need for judicial independence in handling immigration cases, a vital aspect of upholding human rights and international law.
Significant Number of Judges Dismissed Without Explanation
Since January 2025, reports indicate that at least 135 judges—comprising 113 immigration judges, 13 assistant immigration judges, and 9 appellate judges—have been terminated without clear justification. This trend raises alarm about the targeting of judges based on their political affiliations, professional expertise, or judicial records.
Concerns Over Asylum Grant Rates and Judicial Experience
The experts pointed to data showing troubling patterns among the dismissed judges. Of the 78 removed whose information is publicly available, 65 had asylum grant rates surpassing the national average or those typical for their respective courts. Notably, judges with specialized experience in immigration defense and humanitarian advocacy faced inequitable dismissals. Alarmingly, only one judge appointed by the current Democratic administration remains on the Immigration Appeals Board, and over half of the judges that started in April and July 2023 have since been removed.
Threats to Judicial Independence and Due Process
The implications of these dismissals could be dire, undermining both the independence of immigration courts and the broader legal system. The experts noted that immigration judges are tasked with making critical decisions on cases that involve potential persecution, torture, or irreparable harm upon deportation. If judges cannot operate independently and impartially, foreign nationals may find themselves deprived of a fair chance to present their claims or objections, leading to irreversible consequences.
International Commitments and Concerns
In their statement, the experts emphasized that the United States is obligated under various international agreements to prevent refoulement, including provisions from the Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1951 Refugee Convention. They expressed alarm over what they perceive as efforts by the executive branch to shift the immigration court system from an independent adjudication forum to a mechanism aimed primarily at meeting deportation targets.
Judicial Intimidation and Policy Pressures
The experts highlighted that judges must be free to fulfill their responsibilities without facing intimidation, harassment, or retaliation. They noted that during the wave of dismissals, the Justice Department released over 50 policy memos, including warnings to judges about the disciplinary consequences of what could be deemed “slow” or “biased” rulings. Additionally, the practice of holding “mega” master calendar hearings, where a single judge presides over extensive groups of respondents, severely impedes individual adjudication.
Due Process Must Not Be Compromised for Efficiency
The experts reiterated that international law mandates that individuals facing deportation—especially those at risk of torture, persecution, or death—must have the opportunity to present their cases to an independent and impartial body. They strongly asserted that operational efficiency should never come at the expense of due process rights.
The experts have communicated their concerns directly to the U.S. government, emphasizing the urgent need for reforms to ensure that immigration courts operate fairly and justly.
