On March 11, 2026, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) swore in 42 new immigration judges across various U.S. states, all of whom will now make life-changing decisions for immigrants facing deportation, seeking asylum, or applying for adjustment of status. While these appointments were hailed as a step toward tackling the massive case backlog in U.S. immigration courts, the backgrounds of these judges raise serious concerns for immigrants who fear that they may not receive a fair trial.
What Does This New Appointment Mean for Immigrants?
The new immigration judges, selected for their enforcement and prosecutorial backgrounds, are tasked with hearing cases that directly impact the future of many immigrants. These judges have military service, prosecutorial experience, and time spent in federal government legal roles. Many have worked within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), which is a division of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws and deporting immigrants.
OPLA is in charge of prosecuting immigration cases, meaning the judges appointed from this agency have strong enforcement ties, but little to no experience in defending immigrants. This is where the problem lies. Immigrants are already in a vulnerable position, often facing deportation without the opportunity to fully present their side of the story. With the influx of judges who come from prosecutorial roles, there are growing concerns about a conflict of interest and a lack of balance in the courts.
A Court System That Prioritizes Deportation
It is troubling that the new judges predominantly come from enforcement and prosecutorial backgrounds. Defense attorneys—those who represent immigrants seeking to stay in the country—are drastically underrepresented in this new class of judges. Judges who come from these backgrounds are often seen as having a predisposed view of the law that aligns with the deportation-first agenda of the past few administrations.
These judges have spent their careers prosecuting immigration cases, which means they are deeply familiar with the processes that lead to deportation but have limited experience with defending individuals in court or considering the humanitarian aspects of an immigration case. This creates a systematic bias toward deportation, as these judges are more likely to view immigrants as individuals to be removed rather than people deserving of the protection of the law.
Without defense-oriented judges who understand the challenges faced by immigrants—especially those seeking asylum or other forms of relief—the balance of the immigration court system is tipped dangerously toward deportation. These judges are often described as viewing immigration law through a narrow, enforcement-focused lens, which does not account for the nuances of many immigrants’ situations.
Why This Matters for Immigrants
For immigrants, this shift is extremely concerning. The EOIR and OPLA work for the same agency, meaning the judges hearing cases in the immigration courts are part of a larger system that is designed to remove immigrants from the country. When judges and prosecutors come from the same agency, there is an inherent conflict of interest. Prosecutors are tasked with presenting evidence to deport someone, while the judges are supposed to impartially review the case and determine whether deportation is warranted. But with this mix of roles, it’s difficult to guarantee that the judge will approach the case without preconceived notions or bias.
As immigration cases are often high-stakes—determining whether a person stays in the U.S. or faces separation from family and country—it is essential that judges consider the full context of a person’s situation. This includes personal, humanitarian, and legal factors, such as the potential for persecution or the impact on family life. Unfortunately, with a growing number of judges who have been part of the enforcement and prosecution machinery, the likelihood of fair hearings decreases.
These judges may be influenced by the stereotypes that have surrounded immigrants for years—believing that they are simply “illegal” and should be removed. This is a dangerous mindset, as it doesn’t account for the complex realities that many immigrants face: fleeing violence, facing political persecution, or seeking safety in the U.S. in situations beyond their control.
A System That No Longer Prioritizes Justice
It’s important to understand that the role of an immigration judge is to balance justice—not only to hear evidence but to do so impartially, with a full understanding of the human stakes involved. With so many judges coming from prosecutorial and enforcement backgrounds, there is a real concern that the due process required by law may be compromised. For immigrants, this means that their fates are in the hands of judges who have been trained to remove, rather than protect.
Immigrants facing hearings should be aware of the system they are entering and the bias that may exist at play. Judges with enforcement backgrounds may make decisions based on a preconceived notion that they should favor deportation—without adequately considering the full scope of each case. This is why legal representation is critical.
Ready to Take the Next Step?
At Shepelsky Law Group, we understand the challenges immigrants face in today’s ever-changing immigration system. If you or a loved one is facing deportation, seeking asylum, or applying for adjustment of status, don’t face the court system alone. Call Shepelsky Law Group today at Tel: (718)769-6352 to schedule a consultation and begin the process of legalizing your status in the U.S. You can also book your consultation at shepelskylaw.cliogrow.com/book
We can help you navigate the complexities of immigration law and fight for the best possible outcome for your case.