GENEVA (16 July 2026) – 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.”
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“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.
*The
experts:
- Margaret Satterthwaite,
Special
Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers - Gehad Madi, Special Rapporteur on
the human rights of
migrants
