SAN FRANCISCO — A significant transformation is unfolding within the United States immigration courts as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants. Tensions are rising as immigration judges and legal representatives express apprehension regarding potential repercussions for adhering to established procedures.
This unease was exacerbated following an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in March, which alleged that immigration attorneys were training clients to provide false information in asylum applications. The directive tasked the U.S. Attorney General with identifying misconduct, including “frivolous” legal actions, and it threatened sanctions against attorneys breaching professional conduct guidelines.
“We are witnessing a palpable fear among legal service providers and immigration attorneys,” said Millie Atkinson from the San Francisco Bar Association’s Immigrant Legal Defense Program. “There is a concern that being vocal about our work may jeopardize our careers and licenses.”
Ilyce Shugall, a former immigration judge who resigned in 2019 due to strict case quotas imposed during the former administration, voiced similar concerns. She noted that the language in the executive order could intimidate attorneys who represent asylum seekers. According to Shugall, many individuals entering the U.S. through humanitarian parole, especially during the surge of migrants at the border in recent years, are now vulnerable to deportation following the end of that program in January.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is shifting to expediting removal proceedings, meaning individuals may be in detention when they present asylum claims, a scenario that limits their chances of legal representation and success. “The lack of representation significantly reduces their rights and likelihood of being granted asylum,” Shugall observed.
Amidst this climate of uncertainty, a wave of firings has diminished the number of accessible immigration judges. Since Inauguration Day, the Department of Justice has dismissed over 100 judges. Many of those let go had approved a high percentage of asylum cases, raising concerns about potential biases in future adjudications. Judges face pressure through policy memos suggesting greater scrutiny on asylum claims, indirectly influencing the decisions they make to align with administration objectives.
Atkinson reported that regional immigration courts are now operating with just 600 judges, down from an authorized total of 800. The anticipated new hires are expected to reflect the administration’s stance on immigration policies.
In response to the increase in detentions at immigration courts, advocates in San Francisco are taking protective measures, including establishing a presence at courthouses to deter ICE agents from apprehending individuals. Activist Eric Leenson emphasized the necessity of having observers present to ensure due process and awareness of rights, especially among vulnerable immigrants who may lack legal support during hearings.
Despite risks of confrontation, including recent incidents where public officials have been arrested for intervening in detention situations, community members continue to participate in training sessions aimed at effectively monitoring court activities. The overall fear rampant among immigrants is leading to a notable rise in the number of individuals who choose not to attend their hearings, which could jeopardize their legal standing in the U.S.
As this situation develops, the implications for both the legal community and the immigrant population become more pronounced, posing challenges that could have lasting effects on the lives of those seeking asylum and legal protections in the country.
This article was automatically written by Open AI. The information contained within may not be entirely accurate, and any inaccuracies may be addressed by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.