In an unprecedented upheaval, San Francisco finds itself devoid of its key immigration court, leaving a void in a city renowned for welcoming asylum seekers. Once bustling with activity, the court now stands empty, a casualty of a sweeping purge that has rattled the federal immigration judiciary.
Before its closure on May 1, the San Francisco immigration court had been reduced to just two judges, a drastic decline from the 21 judges present when President Donald Trump took office. The dismissals, retirements, and resignations of judges were part of a White House initiative to overhaul the immigration court system amid a staggering backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases nationwide.
This closure marks a significant disruption in the immigration court network, as San Francisco becomes the first major city without a primary immigration court. The remaining judges have been relocated to a federal building in the city, linked to a court across the bay. The shuttering of the court is indicative of the broader chaos affecting the system, exacerbated by the administration’s decision to replace nearly 100 judges with military lawyers.
San Francisco’s reputation as a haven for asylum seekers may have contributed to its court’s downfall. “It was a vibrant legal scene,” said Jeremiah Johnson, a former San Francisco immigration judge. Johnson, who now serves as executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, was among those dismissed, attributing his firing to the high rate of asylum approvals he granted.
With 117,000 cases, the bulk of San Francisco’s immigration matters have been transferred to a courthouse in Concord, approximately 30 miles away. This facility, which was already managing 60,000 cases, has also experienced turmoil, with its judge count reduced from 11 to five.
Known for its favorable rulings towards asylum seekers, the San Francisco court granted relief to nearly 75% of petitioners from 2019 to 2024, significantly higher than the national average of 43%, as per data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. This high success rate was supported by a strong network of pro-immigrant organizations and legal services.
The Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts, announced in March the planned 2027 closure of the San Francisco court for cost-saving reasons. However, the early closure followed the departure of nearly all its judges. The office provided no detailed explanation, stating only that it chose not to renew the court’s lease.
Tight security in Concord courts
The Concord courthouse, dealing with an influx of cases, has implemented stringent security measures. Visitors face rigorous checks for weapons or explosives and must power down their mobile phones. Only water in transparent bottles is allowed inside.
For immigration attorney Judah Lakin, based in Oakland, the closure has made reaching Concord more challenging for his clients, who often rely on public transport. A simple 10-minute hearing now demands over two hours of travel, complicating case logistics.
Beyond practical difficulties, Lakin highlights the chaotic atmosphere within immigration courts under the Trump administration. Frequent judge dismissals have led to abrupt hearing cancellations and case resets, leaving many clients in legal limbo and more susceptible to deportation.
One of Lakin’s clients was provisionally granted asylum by a judge who was subsequently fired before finalizing the decision. The case was handed over to another judge, who also faced dismissal. Now with a third judge, the client remains in uncertainty. “The ground is constantly shifting underneath your feet,” Lakin stated, adding, “I think that’s on purpose. That’s by design. It’s part of the strategy.”
San Francisco’s immigration court is now dismantled
The San Francisco immigration court was a pioneer in hiring judges from non-prosecutorial backgrounds, many of whom had experience working with immigrant communities. Dana Leigh Marks, a former judge at the court for 35 years, described its closure as “heartbreaking” and criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine due process.
“It’s all a part of big ways and little ways that the Trump administration is trying to get non-citizens out of the country,” Marks said.
Johnson, whose asylum approval rate stood at 89%, emphasized, “You don’t fire judges if you disagree with the way they’re handling a case, that’s not how courts work. If you disagree, you appeal that decision.” He noted that only a small fraction of his cases were appealed by the Department of Homeland Security.
Unlike federal courts, where judges enjoy lifetime tenure and strict procedural rules, immigration courts fall under the Justice Department’s purview, allowing the attorney general to dismiss judges with fewer constraints. The number of immigration judges has dwindled from 754 at the beginning of Trump’s second term to approximately 600, including temporary appointments.
Nidaa Pervaiz, an attorney representing a client from Nepal at the Concord court, acknowledged the convenience of its proximity to her home. However, she noted the impact of fewer judges on her clients, whose cases face longer delays, risking paperwork expiration before hearings. “Their whole lives are at stake, and they are coming to make a plea for their future,” she remarked.
