Orange County Activists Demand Virtual Immigration Hearings Now

(ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) Orange County activists are pressing federal officials to make immigration court proceedings available by default through virtual hearings, saying the current system forces many low‑income families to choose between showing up in person and keeping their jobs, arranging childcare, or managing health needs.

As of September 2025, online appearances are allowed in immigration courts, including the Santa Ana Immigration Court, but the default for people without lawyers remains in‑person—unless they file a Motion to Change Hearing Format and a judge agrees. Advocates say that extra step creates a barrier for those who need help the most, including asylum seekers, workers with inflexible schedules, and parents caring for small children or loved ones with disabilities.

They argue moving to a standard option for remote access would reduce missed hearings, which can trigger removal orders in the United States 🇺🇸, and support due process without sacrificing court efficiency.

Current federal practice and local concerns

Under current federal practice, immigration judges decide whether to grant virtual access case by case. Individuals who are not represented—often called “pro se” respondents—receive notices for in‑person appearances unless they successfully request a different format.

The Santa Ana court falls under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of Justice unit that runs the nation’s immigration courts. EOIR supports internet‑based access, but it has not mandated it across the board for Orange County.

Local organizers highlight two main practical issues:

• Cost: Respondents may travel long distances on workdays and pay for transportation and childcare.
• Safety and health: Some worry about COVID‑19 exposure or have family health conditions that make crowded spaces risky.

Community groups say virtual access would ease these pressures and help keep families together while cases move forward. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, these calls mirror national conversations that grew during the pandemic, when courts rapidly expanded remote operations to keep cases going.

Fairness, technology gaps, and opposing views

Immigrant rights groups emphasize fairness benefits:

• Virtual hearings can improve attendance by removing common obstacles.
• Better attendance can lower the chance of deportation orders issued because someone did not appear.

They acknowledge unequal access to technology, but propose targeted supports such as safe community spaces with internet access to address gaps without forcing everyone back into courtrooms.

Court officials have not announced a blanket shift in Orange County. Some judges and administrators have shown openness to virtual options, and the region’s state courts have embraced wider remote access in civil matters. But immigration courts are federal and follow separate policies, which can confuse families who see remote options elsewhere in the legal system.

Critics of broad virtual use raise concerns:

• Technology gaps and unreliable internet access for some respondents
• Privacy issues for attorney‑client communications
• Changes to credibility assessments when testimony is on video

Neutral observers suggest hybrid models—allowing people to choose in‑person or remote formats—as a balanced approach that keeps flexibility while protecting fairness.

Supporters counter that:

• Courts already use video for interviews and testimony in many contexts
• Privacy can be managed with breakout rooms and clear rules
• Remote access lowers no‑show rates and helps families avoid harsh outcomes tied to missed court dates
• EOIR should invest in training and technology to make virtual hearings reliable and easy to use

Advocates’ specific requests

Advocacy groups are asking for two practical changes:

1. Make virtual the default for self‑represented respondents (instead of in‑person).
2. Provide clear, simple instructions—available in multiple languages—on how to request online access through a Motion to Change Hearing Format.

They note many respondents only learn about the motion after receiving confusing or mixed guidance at master calendar hearings.

Judges currently weigh factors such as case type, evidence needs, interpreter access, and court resources before granting a motion. That discretion is why outcomes can vary across courtrooms.

How the process works now

Below is a straightforward look at how the process works today and what Orange County families can do if they want to ask for a virtual hearing.

Key points about policy and court response

• Federal policy allows internet‑based immigration hearings, but judges in Santa Ana are not required to set them by default.
• Respondents with attorneys often coordinate with counsel to appear online; those without counsel usually must file the extra motion.
• The Motion to Change Hearing Format is a written request explaining why virtual access is important for a particular case.
• Judges review motions individually to balance speed, security, and fairness.
• Virtual hearings require steady platforms, trained staff, and clear procedures for filing evidence and sharing exhibits.

Community leaders want more outreach through community centers, schools, and faith groups so people know virtual hearings exist and understand how to ask for them. They push for multilingual materials and hotlines that explain the motion process in plain language, with examples and checklists.

Step‑by‑step: How to ask for a virtual hearing

Activists stress filing a Motion to Change Hearing Format with the immigration court handling the case. While formal, the motion’s purpose is simple: tell the judge why appearing online would make the hearing fairer and more practical.

Recommended steps:

1. Confirm how your next hearing is scheduled:
   • Call 1‑800‑898‑7180 and provide your A‑number (Alien Registration Number).
   • The system will report your next date, time, and location.
2. Prepare a short written motion titled Motion to Change Hearing Format:
   • Explain reasons for asking for a virtual hearing.
   • Be specific: health needs, limited transportation, childcare, disability, or work conflicts are common reasons.
3. File the motion with the immigration court listed on your notice:
   • Keep a copy for your records.
   • If required, serve the other parties following standard rules so all parties receive the filing.
4. Wait for the judge’s decision:
   • If approved, the court will send instructions on how to join online.
   • If denied, you must appear in person on the scheduled date.
5. On hearing day:
   • Test your device, find a quiet space, and have documents ready.
   • If you need an interpreter, the court will include that in the hearing plan.

For official information about internet‑based access and links used by immigration courts, see EOIR’s page on Find an Immigration Court and Access Internet‑Based Hearings: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/find-immigration-court-and-access-internet-based-hearings.

Practical details and resources

• Santa Ana Immigration Court address: 1241 E. Dyer Road, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92705
• Court hours: Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., except federal holidays
• Clerks can provide general procedures but cannot give legal advice
• Those who cannot afford counsel often seek help from legal aid groups focused on immigrant justice

Tradeoffs, proposed solutions, and what organizers are doing

Activists stress the stakes: a missed hearing can lead to a removal order, and rescheduling is often difficult. They argue clearer paths to virtual hearings will keep more families on track and reduce harsh outcomes caused by logistical barriers.

Opponents emphasize unequal internet access and limited private spaces to appear. Organizers propose practical fixes:

• Public access rooms at trusted community locations
• Printed guides in multiple languages
• Helplines staffed by trained volunteers during peak court times

Attorneys representing clients in Santa Ana say virtual hearings help manage heavy calendars and limit travel time—especially for short master calendar hearings. They also want consistent rules for evidence submission, exhibit handling, and private attorney‑client communications. Many favor a hybrid approach that preserves in‑person trials when live testimony and in‑court credibility assessments matter most.

For now, progress depends on individual motions and judge discretion. Activists are organizing meetings with EOIR leadership and planning public education drives so more people know about the Motion to Change Hearing Format and how to use it. They believe steady, community‑level action can lead to a formal policy treating virtual access as a standard option rather than a special request.

Key takeaway: Ask early, explain clearly, and keep records. If conditions change, file again. Persistence often makes the difference for families facing court in Santa Ana.

The debate in Orange County reflects a national question that dates to the pandemic: how to balance speed, safety, and fairness in a system handling high caseloads and life‑changing decisions. For families facing immigration court in Santa Ana, organizers’ message is simple and direct—use the tools available, seek help when needed, and document every step.