Amid Chaos at SF Immigration Court, Judges Give 800 Deportation Orders in 1 Week

Why It Matters

The mass in‑absentia removals undermine due process for thousands of asylum seekers and signal a systemic shift toward expedited deportations, reshaping the immigration enforcement landscape.

Key Takeaways

• Over 800 in‑absentia removals issued in one week.
• Court staff cut from 21 judges to two.
• Backlog exceeds 120,000 immigration cases.
• Hearings scheduled back‑to‑back to force no‑shows.
• Asylum seekers lose chance for relief, face ICE detention.

Pulse Analysis

The San Francisco immigration court is confronting an unprecedented crisis. Judge vacancies have plummeted from 21 to just two, while a staggering backlog of about 120,000 cases strains the system’s capacity. This shortage has forced the court to adopt unconventional scheduling tactics, clustering dozens of hearings in a single day. The result is a surge in in‑absentia removal orders, effectively stripping many immigrants of their right to present asylum claims and exposing them to immediate ICE enforcement.

Legal experts warn that the practice of mass, back‑to‑back hearings may contravene statutory due‑process protections. By deliberately setting dates that are difficult for respondents to attend, the court creates a procedural trap that leads to automatic removals. This approach sidesteps the substantive review of asylum claims, raising questions about compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act and potential violations of constitutional rights. Advocacy groups argue that such tactics constitute a de‑facto policy of denial, rather than a neutral administrative measure.

The broader implications extend beyond San Francisco. As the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review faces scrutiny, the episode highlights a national trend toward accelerated deportations under constrained resources. Stakeholders anticipate heightened litigation and calls for legislative reform to safeguard asylum procedures. Meanwhile, the looming closure of the city’s primary immigration courthouse could exacerbate delays, prompting policymakers to reconsider funding allocations and judicial appointments to restore fairness in the immigration adjudication process.