(SAN FRANCISCO, CA) The San Francisco Immigration Court has climbed from four active judges earlier this year to eight on the Justice Department’s latest roster, but lawyers and immigrants say the added names have not eased an Immigration Court Crisis that is pushing hearings as far out as 2030. The increase comes as the Trump administration presses ahead with a nationwide hiring surge—36 new immigration judges, including 25 temporary appointments—while more than 140 judges have left the bench in 2025 through firings, resignations, or early retirements, according to reporting compiled by VisaVerge.com from Justice Department and media accounts.

Current court roster and administration

The court’s current list includes immigration judges:

• Howard R. Davis
• Charles S. Greene III
• Steven M. Kirchner
• Patrick O’Brien
• Joseph Y. Park
• Karen Schulz
• Frank Seminerio
• Michelle Slayton

The docket is overseen by Acting Court Administrator Candelaria Morgart, with Jonathan W. Hitesman serving as Backup Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, according to the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

What this means in practice

People in removal proceedings—deportation cases—are experiencing:

• Fewer hearing slots
• More continuances as crowded master calendar dockets repeatedly postpone cases before they reach a full “individual hearing”
• Simultaneous pressures of fast filing deadlines but slow court dates

EOIR says it aims for “operational efficiency” while facing a national backlog that exceeds 3 million cases, but respondents and their families often feel both the push for speed and the reality of delay.

Human and practical impacts

For immigrants in the Bay Area, a 2030 hearing date causes concrete problems:

• Work permits tied to pending applications require repeated renewals
• Travel plans are shelved for years
• Families may remain split across borders while awaiting a case decision
• In detained cases, delays can mean more time in custody and increased pressure to accept removal rather than continue fighting

The backlog affects daily life: lost work time for short court appearances, repeated updates of addresses to avoid missed mailed notices, and the emotional toll of prolonged uncertainty.

Recent disruptions and departures

The disruption intensified in recent weeks:

• At least 14 experienced immigration judges were terminated in a two-week span, leaving thousands of cases in limbo.
• Nationally, reports describe 90+ judges receiving formal termination notices.
• More than 140 judges left the bench in 2025 (firings, resignations, early retirements).

Critics say these losses have hit judges experienced in immigrant defense especially hard, compounding backlog and inconsistency.

Policy shifts under debate

A major policy shift drawing attention in Washington is the plan to deploy up to 600 military lawyers as temporary “deportation judges.”

• Supporters: Present this as a rapid-capacity solution.
• Critics: Warn that many uniformed attorneys lack deep immigration practice, risking more appeals, errors, and frightened courtrooms where counsel and interpreters are already scarce.

On December 3, 2025, Democrats introduced legislation to limit who can serve in these temporary roles. The bill would restrict temporary judge appointments to people with 10 years of immigration law experience or an appellate background — a direct attempt to block or narrow the military lawyer initiative amid due process concerns.

Variability in judicial decisions

A quieter but important concern is inconsistency:

• Immigration judges have wide discretion; outcomes can vary significantly between judges even when facts are similar.
• Example statistics from the source: Judge Joseph Y. Park granted asylum or other relief in 58.8% of 711 merits decisions from FY2020–2025, denying 41.2%.

Such statistics shape risk assessments for families deciding whether to wait in San Francisco’s backlog or seek transfer elsewhere.

Options and procedural tools for respondents

Common procedural strategies and their caveats:

• Change of venue requests to move a case to a court closer to a new home
  • Not automatic; courts can deny requests seen as purely tactical
• Seeking immigration benefits through other agencies (e.g., USCIS) and asking the judge to pause the removal case
  • Requires careful timing and consistent paperwork across agencies
  • Does not remove the duty to attend court dates
• Applying for employment authorization if eligible
  • Use Form I-765, available on the official USCIS page: USCIS Form I-765 page
• Filing motions for courtroom stipulations to narrow disputed issues so a judge can set a faster individual hearing
• Asking DHS for prosecutorial discretion (pause or drop the case)
  • Discretion is uneven and can change with policy

Warning: Missing a deadline or hearing can lead to an in absentia removal order, even for strong claims.

Courtroom conditions and local responses

Inside the San Francisco courthouse, strain appears in everyday ways:

• Calendars that run late
• Interpreters stretched thin
• Attorneys forced to explain how a “next month” date can become “next year” after one continuance

Local practices and incentives:

• California courts have been targeted with recruitment incentives and remote work perks to attract judges.
• Temporary judges rotate frequently, and turnover means new scheduling orders and briefing deadlines, and occasionally new factual views.

Lawyers report filing more motions to change venue, more requests for government stipulations, and more appeals or requests for prosecutorial discretion. These tactics are attempts to manage instability, but results are uneven.

Summary and takeaway

The court may have doubled its listed judges since early 2025, but with mass departures, temporary hiring, and proposals like the 600 military lawyers, the San Francisco Immigration Court Crisis remains defined by instability, not relief.

EOIR supporters argue tough management choices are needed to cut the backlog. Critics counter that firing many judges while hiring temporary ones risks less stable courts, rushed hearings, and more appeals—all of which strain an already overloaded system. For immigrants and families, the stakes are real: prolonged legal limbo, disrupted lives, and difficult choices about whether to wait, move, or accept uncertain outcomes.