(SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) The Trump administration has removed at least six immigration judges from the San Francisco Immigration Court in 2025, five of whom had asylum grant rates above the national average, according to a new analysis. The dismissals, carried out despite a mounting case backlog, mark an escalation of efforts to reshape the immigration judiciary during President Trump’s second term and align the bench with policies pushing higher asylum denials and faster case closures.
The San Francisco Immigration Court has long been a bellwether for trends in asylum adjudications. This year, its staffing changes stand out. Since President Trump returned to office on January 20, 2025, more than a dozen immigration judges have been terminated nationwide, with San Francisco a particular focus.
The timing coincides with record asylum case volumes and record denial rates, a combination that has redefined the odds for people seeking safety in the United States 🇺🇸.
Recent case volumes and denial trends
- In March 2025, immigration judges decided 10,933 asylum applications, the highest monthly total ever recorded, even as the share of denials hit 76%, another record.
- Denial rates rose sharply over recent years:
- 45% in August 2023
- 60% in August 2024
- 64% by December 2024 (under President Biden)
- 74% in February 2025
- 76% in March 2025 (after the administration change)
Analysts say the replacement of judges with historically higher grant rates is part of that shift.
Pattern and pace of removals
The removal pattern suggests a clear focus on judges with higher asylum approval rates. Immigration law scholar Austin Kocher described the approach as:
“fast-tracking asylum decisions with the clear goal of clearing the docket by simply denying as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.”
In San Francisco, the dismissed judges had long tenures and deep experience in asylum law, and were known for careful fact-finding and reasoned decisions. Their departures have thinned the ranks of jurists who historically granted relief at higher-than-average rates.
Monthly decisions have climbed rapidly:
1. About 6,000 per month in late 2024
2. 8,050 in January 2025
3. 9,829 in February 2025
4. Record 10,933 in March 2025
This increase isn’t attributed to added resources; rather, it reflects a policy drive to resolve cases faster, often without full hearings. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the operational tempo is the point, not the byproduct: quicker decisions, fewer grants, and a system oriented toward removal.
The effects extend beyond Northern California. Similar terminations have been reported in other jurisdictions, suggesting a nationwide recalibration of the bench.
Practical consequences for attorneys and litigants
When judges leave mid-docket:
– Cases are reassigned and schedules shift.
– Hearings can be reset on short notice.
– Preparation for complex asylum claims (expert reports, medical evaluations, witnesses) becomes harder.
For attorneys in San Francisco, the churn has immediate, practical consequences. The loss of experienced judges disrupts continuity and complicates strategies for obtaining relief.
Policy shifts driving higher denials
Judicial changes have coincided with procedural directives that make it easier to reject cases early.
- On April 11, 2025, the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued guidance encouraging immigration judges to pretermit asylum applications that fail to state a prima facie claim—meaning cases can be dismissed without a full hearing if the filing doesn’t meet basic legal thresholds.
- The Executive Office for Immigration Review says such tools promote efficiency; critics argue they pressure judges to dispose of cases quickly rather than weigh the merits thoroughly.
Meanwhile, border policies have reduced access to the court system altogether. Since January 20, 2025, access to ports of entry for asylum seekers has been effectively closed, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection can return people to Mexico without placing them in removal proceedings. That means many who would have once had a chance to present claims in San Francisco never reach a courtroom.
For those who do reach court, attorneys report:
– Compressed timelines
– Fewer opportunities to build the record
– Increased risk of dismissal without a hearing
Detention and courtroom environment
In July 2025, of 33,769 new Immigration Court cases:
– 30% of individuals were in ICE detention
– 70% were released pending hearings
Detention can affect outcomes by limiting access to counsel, complicating evidence gathering, and speeding up hearing schedules. In San Francisco, where legal nonprofits are stretched, detained clients can struggle to secure representation quickly enough to meet new deadlines.
Broader institutional and policy context
The New York City Bar Association, which has tracked executive actions since January, wrote that the administration is “taking major steps to reshape immigration policy and practice that test the limits of executive power.” Their report, updated June 16, 2025, places judge terminations within a broader agenda that includes curbing humanitarian pathways and emphasizing expedited removal.
Funding priorities have reinforced these changes:
– The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed in August 2025, provides roughly $32 billion for immigration agents and operations tied to enforcement and deportation through September 30, 2029.
– It also directs more than $75 billion to border enforcement and militarization, including $47 billion for wall construction.
Those allocations align with faster adjudications and more removals, not expansions of legal pathways or increases in court staffing.
How attorneys are adapting
Within the San Francisco Immigration Court, attorneys say they’re adjusting strategies to the new environment:
– Front-loading filings with detailed declarations, country condition reports, and corroboration at the earliest stage
– Focusing on motions practice to keep cases from being dismissed on the papers
– Keeping client contact information current to avoid missed notices
Despite tactical changes, when judges known for careful, grant-friendly adjudications are removed, the overall landscape shifts regardless of strategy.
Human impact
The human toll is immediate and significant:
– Families in the Bay Area—parents with U.S. citizen children, LGBTQ+ applicants fleeing targeted abuse, survivors of gender-based violence—face longer odds.
– Cases that might have succeeded on credibility and corroboration a year ago may now fail at threshold review.
– Lawyers report more clients weighing other forms of relief or considering voluntary departure to avoid prolonged detention without a clear path to protection.
For the court’s administration, rapid reassignment after terminations creates bottlenecks even as the system pushes for speed:
– Dockets must be redistributed
– Law clerks reassigned
– Pending motions revisited
The loss of institutional memory—judges who knew the local bar, interpreted recurring issues consistently, and managed heavy asylum calendars—may also affect consistency across outcomes.
Narrowing external lifelines
The broader context is even tighter:
– The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has been suspended since January 27, 2025
– Private sponsorship channels have closed
With external humanitarian routes constrained, asylum in court becomes the remaining lifeline for many. When the bench shifts toward lower asylum grant rates, that lifeline narrows.
Competing narratives and what to expect
Supporters of the administration argue that faster decisions are necessary to deter weak claims and reduce backlogs. Critics counter that speed without due process risks sending people back to danger.
In San Francisco, where judges with higher approval histories have been sidelined, that debate is visible in day-to-day hearings, decisions from the bench, and the rising share of denials.
If the pattern of removals continues, grant rates will likely fall further, reinforcing the nationwide trend. For now, attorneys urge applicants to:
– Gather evidence early
– Keep addresses and contact information current to avoid missed notices
– Prepare for quicker timelines
The stakes—freedom, family unity, sometimes life and death—remain as high as ever in a system built to move faster and deny more often.
This Article in a Nutshell
In 2025 the Trump administration has actively removed at least six immigration judges from the San Francisco Immigration Court, five of whom historically granted asylum at above-average rates. These dismissals coincide with a surge in monthly decisions—peaking at 10,933 in March 2025—and a steep rise in denial rates to 76%. Policy changes, including an April 11, 2025 EOIR directive to pretermit weak claims and border measures closing ports of entry, are accelerating case resolution often without full hearings. Attorneys report disrupted dockets, compressed timelines, and greater obstacles to preparing complex asylum claims. Budgetary priorities and nationwide judge replacements suggest this is part of a broader effort to reduce grants and expedite removals.
