Recent investigations show that a number of immigration judges in different parts of the United States, two of which are located in the Bay Area of California, have been removed from their positions. While the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not published a release explaining these removals, concerns around political influence, the autonomy of the judiciary, and the status of immigrants within the U.S. legal system have been raised.
At Oguz Law, we understand the changes in the legal landscape, and we are also committed to analyzing the implications of those changes, especially when they impact the clients we represent and the balance in the system of immigration adjudication.
What Went Down?
Judges Kyra Lilien (Concord) and Ila Deiss (San Francisco) were among several immigration judges whose contracts were not renewed by the DOJ, thus eroding their tenure without explanation as of June 2025. Both judges were part of the EOIR, the DOJ office responsible for the immigration court system. Numerous reports suggest there were no formal evaluations, discipline, or any cited misconduct processes related to the termination.
A Broader Pattern Emerges
This, however, is not the only instance. There’s a wider scope to it. A minimum of 17 immigration judges in 10 states have been removed, or are not eligible for reappointment, since the beginning of the year. Associated Press reports that a number of the judges affected were appointed in Biden’s first year of office, with some holding prior positions that advocated for immigration and aliens’ rights. Judge Lilien worked for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and Judge Deiss spent over twenty years as a government attorney prior to her judicial appointment.
These firings have been quite alarming for the legal profession because they do not follow the norm for reappointment. Normally, judges for EOIR are assessed based on how well they manage to conduct the cases in their courts. In this set of removals, however, several judges reportedly received no notification or explanation. Judge Jennifer Peyton from the Chicago court told CBS News that she received an email stating that she was fired without providing any rationale. In the same way, Judge Carla Espinoza, one of the few Latina judges who was affected, pondered if her gender and Hispanic heritage could have influenced this decision and remarked, “I was the only woman and the only person with a Spanish surname in that immigration court.”
These removals, in the view of the Immigration Judges Union and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, appear to signify an overarching strategy to realign the leadership of immigration courts, seemingly with the intent to forcibly eliminate specific judges ahead of the next election and upcoming enforcement initiatives. The IFPTE’s press release went on to stress that such removals “erode the fundamental principles of due process and the rule of law,” adding to the already significant immigration court backlog.
Why Does This Matter?
- Judicial Independence at Risk
Immigration judges are not Article III federal judges; they are technically DOJ employees. That means they can be hired or fired at the discretion of the executive branch. However, removing judges without transparency undermines public trust and raises red flags about political motivations.
- Case Backlogs Will Get Worse
Immigration courts are already overwhelmed. According to federal data, over 3 million cases are pending nationwide. Removing experienced judges without quickly replacing them may delay hearings even further, especially in busy jurisdictions like California.
- Chilling Effect on Fair Decision-Making
Multiple advocacy groups and former judges argue that this wave of dismissals could send a dangerous message: if a judge grants too many asylum claims or does not align with the administration’s immigration priorities, they could lose their job.
A Look Back: Trump-Era Influence Still Lingers
While these dismissals are happening under the current administration, their roots trace back to policy shifts from the Trump era. During that time, immigration courts saw:
- Increased pressure to speed up deportations
- Reduced judicial discretion in asylum cases
- Political appointees affecting hiring and firing practices
Legal analysts worry that some of those structures still exist, allowing for the removal of judges who do not align with evolving enforcement objectives.
What This Means for Immigrants and Advocates
For most individuals with removal orders or those in pursuit of asylum, the adjudicator’s decision is crucial. This is the reason why judicial independence is not only a matter of legal theory, but also a matter of concrete consequences.
If there is a suspicion that removal is being done for the wrong reasons, there is a total collapse of due process. And without due process, there is no justice in the entire immigration system.
Final Thoughts
This is not just about personnel. This is a legal and ethical dilemma for the U.S. immigration system. Regardless of whether or not the removals were politically motivated, the reasoning is concerning and requires further analysis.
At Oguz Law, we continue to monitor the changes that affect the rights and future of immigrants. If you or a family member is dealing with the immigration system and you have concerns about delays, judicial decisions, or the impacts of judicial shifts on your matter, we are ready to assist.
Reach out to us and get your consultations for free today.
