Immigration Judge Shira Levin Dismissed as Court Turnover Surges

(SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) Immigration Judge Shira M. Levine was abruptly removed from the bench in September 2025 while presiding over an asylum hearing, according to attorneys who watched her step down mid‑proceeding. The Department of Justice provided no cause for the immediate Dismissal, which froze her docket—including thousands of pending cases—in place. Levine is challenging the action in court, as are other judges removed in recent months, saying the process lacked due process and clear justification.

Levine joined the San Francisco Immigration Court in October 2021 and built a record that stood out. Between fiscal years 2019 and 2024, she decided 920 asylum claims, granting protection in 97.9% of cases—far above national trends. Nationally, the denial rate in that period was 57.7% (a grant rate of 42.3%), while San Francisco judges denied 28.3% (a grant rate of 71.7%).

Her cases mainly involved people from India, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, and Honduras. Before becoming an Immigration Judge, she worked at the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area and Centro Legal de la Raza, and clerked for Judge Harry Pregerson on the Ninth Circuit.

Rapid removals and a shifting bench

Levine’s ouster is part of a broader wave of terminations since President Trump returned to office in January 2025.

• By October 2025, 139 immigration judges nationwide had been fired, pushed into early retirement, or involuntarily transferred.
• 24 judges were removed in September 2025 alone.
• In San Francisco, nearly 30% of the bench has been terminated during this period.

The Department of Justice has not offered public reasons. Former judges say removals of this kind were exceedingly rare in past administrations and usually tied to performance issues.

Judges most often targeted share two traits:

• High rates of granting relief, or
• Backgrounds in immigrant defense.

Another San Francisco jurist, Judge Chloe Dillon—also known for a high grant rate—was removed in August 2025, leaving roughly 6,000 cases in limbo.

The Department of Justice has also loosened requirements for temporary immigration judges, allowing attorneys without deep immigration experience, including military lawyers, to step in after abbreviated training. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, this shift has changed who hears life‑altering cases, with ripple effects across already strained courts.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Justice Department component that runs the immigration courts, continues to appoint temporary judges as the reshuffle unfolds. EOIR’s official site outlines how the court system operates and how judges are appointed and assigned. For background on court structure and procedures, see the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Backlog, due process, and human impact

The national court backlog has climbed past 3.4 million cases, and sudden judge losses have slowed dockets even more.

When an Immigration Judge like Shira Levine is removed mid‑docket:

• Hearings must be rescheduled and reassigned, often months or years out.
• People waiting for asylum or other relief face greater uncertainty.
• Families remain separated and employers can’t plan around work authorization that hinges on case outcomes.
• Children may age out of protections.
• Even those who want to leave the United States voluntarily often wait longer for orders that allow them to close their cases.

Inside the courts, morale has dropped. Judges describe a tense workplace where colleagues pack up personal items, fearing they could be next. Staffers speak of mixed messages: courts are labeled “essential” during government shutdowns to keep deportation capacity active, yet courts lose experienced adjudicators without explanation.

Some former judges warn that the rapid turnover and reliance on temporary judges after short training periods risks:

• Weaker hearings
• More procedural errors
• Increased appeals, which could further clog the system

“Part and parcel of a very, very grand scheme of creating a very frictionless deportation machine,” said Ashley Tabaddor, a former Immigration Judge and past president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

Milli Atkinson of the Bar Association of San Francisco said the pattern—targeting judges with high relief rates or defense backgrounds—appears unprecedented and destabilizing, especially in major courts like San Francisco.

Legal and political fallout

Levine and other dismissed judges have filed lawsuits challenging their removals, arguing that the government acted without cause or fair process. So far, courts have not ruled on the legality of the mass dismissals.

Advocates and legal experts have condemned the purge as politically driven and harmful to the rule of law. They warn that replacing seasoned judges with short‑term appointees after brief training could weaken the integrity of hearings and undermine due process.

The Department of Justice has offered no public reasoning for the moves. What is clear is the policy direction:

• Streamlining deportations and
• Lowering asylum grants

were core promises in President Trump’s campaign, and the court reshuffle aligns with those goals. The DOJ’s decision to allow temporary judges with reduced experience requirements—combined with the high number of removals—suggests a lasting shift in how courts will function.

Even as dockets remain active and hearing rooms open, the people running those rooms are changing fast.

Practical advice for affected parties

People with cases that were on Judge Levine’s docket may see new hearing notices with different timelines or judges. Lawyers advise clients to:

1. Keep all address updates current with the court to avoid missing notices and risking in absentia orders.
2. Work with counsel to request earlier dates where possible for urgent needs (medical care, school enrollment, protection concerns), though success varies by court and judge availability.
3. Ensure a complete record at every stage — if a new judge takes over and procedures feel rushed, ask for time to prepare, ensure interpreters are present, and put concerns on the record for any future appeal.

Former judges stress that as turnover rises, strong records become even more important to protect rights.

Systemic questions and possible outcomes

For now, immigration courts remain open and active, even during fiscal uncertainty. EOIR staff and court operations are designated essential, which keeps removal cases moving. But speed doesn’t always match fairness.

Possible legal outcomes include:

• If courts find that sudden removals without cause violate civil service rules or other protections, the bench could see reinstatements or new limits on DOJ authority.
• If not, the reshuffle may continue—and with it, a new era defined less by experience and more by speed.

For immigrants, employers, and families, this means:

• More waiting
• More mixed signals
• More pressure to be prepared for last‑minute changes

For judges and court staff, it means doing the work amid constant shakeups. And for the country, it raises a basic question:

Can a court built to decide who stays and who goes carry out that mission when its own foundation keeps moving?