Local Immigration Cases Hang in the Balance Amid Record Backlogs

The nation’s immigration court system has entered a new phase of strain, with more than 3.7 million pending cases clogging dockets and pushing hearing dates years into the future. The asylum backlog now stands at roughly 2 million, and judges are issuing decisions at record pace while denying most claims.

In March 2025 alone, immigration judges decided 10,933 asylum cases, the highest monthly total on record, and denied 76% of them, according to data tracked by TRAC Immigration at Syracuse University. For people caught in this surge—families, children, and long‑settled workers alike—the immediate effect is simple: multi‑year waits for a first hearing, rising odds of denial, and mounting pressure to move cases without the legal support most people need to present their claims.

Record Backlog and Immediate Local Effects

Local immigration cases mirror national trends but can feel even more intense.

• The biggest backlogs sit in Miami (317,000 cases), New York City (240,000), Orlando (227,000), Dallas (220,000), Chicago (193,000), and Newark (190,000).
• Average wait times are between 3.9 and 5 years nationwide.
• In many urban courts, hearing dates are scheduled so far out that families struggle to keep addresses current, children age out of protections, and evidence becomes harder to gather.

Day to day, the system moves unevenly. Most people are released after apprehension with Notices to Appear (NTAs) that require them to show up in immigration court, but many receive little guidance on what happens next. That leads to confusion, missed deadlines, and in absentia removal orders—decisions issued when someone does not appear.

• Over the past three years, 8% of removal orders were issued in absentia.
• 67% of people in removal proceedings do not have a lawyer, and among children the figure has been above 70% in the past year.
• Legal representation often determines outcomes: people with counsel have far higher chances of relief.

Key Policy Shifts Driving Outcomes

Since January 2025, the government has reshaped court operations.

• Under President Trump, the Department of Justice—through EOIR overseen by Attorney General Pam Bondi—has pushed for more enforcement and expedited removals.
• DHS attorneys have taken a harder line, challenging asylum claims more aggressively and seeking to narrow relief.
• The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule ties many asylum seekers to the CBP One mobile appointment system; failure to meet its conditions can create greater bars to asylum later.

The government has increased hiring: the bench is now near 700 judges nationwide. Experts estimate the courts would need to double to 1,400 judges to put the backlog on a path to resolution by 2032, not counting the support staff, courtrooms, interpreters, and technology upgrades required.

Where Pressure Is Highest — Why It Matters

Urban courts bear the brunt because these cities are entry points, resettlement hubs, and family‑reunion destinations.

• Miami and Orlando: many cases from the Caribbean and Latin America, including large numbers of Venezuelans.
• New York City: broad range of nationalities; many rely on community and faith‑based networks while they wait.
• Dallas and Chicago: growing numbers from Central America and Mexico, often tied to family and work.

Local resources lag behind demand:

• Legal aid providers report waitlists, pro bono programs at capacity, and intake windows that force strict triage.
• Some nonprofits limit help to certain case types, leaving many without counsel until well after their court dates.

Who Is in the Backlog — Demographics and Detention

Large shares of the docket come from a few countries:

Many claims involve fear based on gang violence, political harm, or domestic abuse; others are for people who long ago built lives in the U.S. and later received NTAs.

• Detention is a relatively small slice: about 20,200 people detained at any given time — roughly 0.77% of pending cases.
• Detained individuals tend to face faster timelines and greater difficulty assembling evidence or finding counsel.
• Representation has a dramatic effect: people charged with entry without inspection were 77% likely to remain in the U.S. if they had a lawyer.

Courtroom Realities: Process, Missed Hearings, and Technology

On paper the process seems straightforward; in practice it is fragile.

• People receive an NTA with a first hearing date (sometimes “to be set”), then must check for updates and maintain a current address.
• Notices can arrive late or to the wrong address; moves, returned mail, and language barriers lead to in absentia orders.
• The EOIR Automated Case Information System helps people confirm dates and locations, but it depends on accurate addresses and English‑language access.

Technology and workload create further problems:

• Courts use a mix of paper and digital records; video hearings are increasing but bring connectivity and interpreter issues.
• Immigration judges carry caseloads near 5,000 each, making it hard to give adequate time to every case and increasing burnout risk.
• These conditions shape critical decisions on asylum, cancellation of removal, and other defenses that require careful review.

Advice from legal aid groups: check your case status often, save every document, and attend every hearing.

The Human Toll

Behind the statistics are families and individuals making difficult tradeoffs.

• Example: a couple in Chicago with two children fleeing threats sees their first hearing scheduled for 2027. They move for work, risk missing notices, and struggle to find a lawyer while their children’s needs go unmet.
• Example: a Miami teenager who arrived without a parent misses a notice because it’s in English and Spanish and assumes it’s a duplicate; an in absentia order follows, and reopening the case becomes another uphill battle.
• Example: a Honduran long‑time resident with U.S.‑born children faces complex documentation needs for cancellation of removal and cannot prepare without counsel.

These stories repeat across the asylum backlog and within local court systems in major cities.

How Enforcement Priorities Shape Calendars

Current enforcement priorities show up in several courtroom practices:

• More aggressive cross‑examination by DHS attorneys.
• Greater emphasis on whether people used CBP One before seeking protection.
• Pushes to close cases where relief appears limited, sometimes via expedited timelines or narrower interpretations of eligibility.

Legal aid groups warn these measures, without parallel investment in judges and systems, worsen the backlog. Judges warn of due process risks when calendars cannot support witness testimony and document review.

Proposed Fixes from Experts

Experts and advocates suggest overlapping reforms:

1. Double the number of immigration judges to about 1,400 and add matching support staff.
2. Move courts onto modern digital systems to reduce lost files, returned mail, and scheduling errors.
3. Expand broad legal representation, especially for children and detained people.
4. Use administrative handling for certain low‑priority categories to free judges for complex cases.

• Some reforms require legislation; others could proceed through budget or administrative actions.
• Political obstacles remain significant, especially given the administration’s focus on enforcement first and expedited removals.

The Outlook: A Decade‑Long Challenge

Without major staffing and system changes, analysts expect the backlog to persist into the next decade.

• Even with high completion rates (as in March 2025), the docket won’t clear because new filings continue to arrive.
• About 1.2 million new deportation cases in the past 12 months add to the burden.
• Expect continued triage, with average waits of 3.9 to 5 years, and longer waits in some locations.

Detention and remote hearings can speed some cases, but they address only a small portion of the docket and can raise fairness concerns. Representation remains the most significant factor tied to success; advocacy groups continue to call for a national right to counsel, which does not yet exist.

Practical Steps for People in Proceedings

For those already in the system, recommended actions include:

• Keep your address current with the court and check your hearing date often. EOIR’s portal is available at: https://www.justice.gov/eoir.
• Save every document; bring originals and copies to every hearing.
• Seek legal help early; many organizations have intake days or waitlists—get on them now.
• Prepare evidence as soon as possible. Medical records, police reports, school records, and statements can take months to collect.
• If you miss a hearing, act quickly. Contact a legal aid group about options to reopen; timing matters.

Employers, schools, and community groups can help by sharing how to call the EOIR hotline, how to read court notices, and why attending hearings matters. Simple checklists and reminder systems already used by faith groups and nonprofits can reduce missed dates.

Multiple Perspectives on What Comes Next

• EOIR leadership (under Pam Bondi) emphasizes moving cases faster and hiring more judges.
• DHS attorneys prioritize enforcement, contesting asylum more frequently and arguing for narrower relief.
• Immigration judges warn about due process when calendars are overloaded.
• Legal aid and advocacy groups push for counsel in every case, better technology, and court reforms.
• Affected communities—from Central America, Mexico, and Venezuela—live with day‑to‑day uncertainty; each policy change can shift schooling, work, and housing decisions.

These perspectives highlight that immigration courts sit at the intersection of national security, foreign policy, labor markets, and family life. The asylum backlog is not just a number—it reflects how many people are waiting to learn if they can stay safe and keep their families together.

Why the Backlog Grew and Why It’s Hard to Reverse

Several converging forces drove the sharp growth:

• Higher border arrivals added large numbers of new cases.
• Courts lacked sufficient judicial resources and technology even as hiring increased.
• Policy rules like CBP One complicated eligibility and produced more contested claims.
• Representation gaps widened as legal aid could not meet demand.
• Case completion rose but not enough to counter incoming cases.

Small inefficiencies multiply across millions of cases. Even steps like evening dockets and video hearings cannot replace the careful legal work needed for fear‑based claims.

What Stakeholders Should Watch

• EOIR hiring announcements and budgeting—progress toward the 1,400‑judge target is a key signal.
• Any changes to asylum eligibility or the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule.
• Congressional proposals to expand legal aid or streamline case types.
• Local funding for defense programs in cities with the largest dockets.

Until meaningful changes arrive, people in the queue should expect the status quo: long waits, tight hearings, and a system that places heavy demands on applicants. The best immediate defenses remain early preparation, consistent contact with the court, and seeking legal help whenever possible.