For thousands of asylum seekers trying to navigate the U.S. immigration system, one reality stands out: immigration court is not like other courts. Despite its name, it does not operate under the protections and structure of the independent judiciary. Instead, it functions as a politicized administrative system — one that often delivers wildly inconsistent results, lacks impartial safeguards, and places even strong legal claims at risk of being denied over minor procedural missteps.

⚖️ Immigration Courts Are Not Judicial Courts

First and foremost, immigration courts are not part of the federal judicial branch. They fall under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This means both the immigration judges and the ICE trial attorneys (the government’s prosecutors) are employed by the same federal agency — the executive branch.

In contrast to Article III judges, who are appointed for life and insulated from political interference, immigration judges are career employees of the DOJ. They can be reassigned, disciplined, and even fired based on administrative priorities and performance reviews.

🚨 Immigration Judges Can Be Fired — And Recently Were

This lack of judicial independence is not hypothetical. In 2024–2025, multiple immigration judges were removed from their positions or not reappointed, reportedly because of their higher-than-average asylum approval rates. These terminations came in the wake of former President Trump’s reassertion of influence over immigration policy.

Let that sink in: immigration judges can be fired because of how they rule. This is unheard of in the regular court system. It reinforces a hard truth — immigration judges are not truly independent decision-makers. They serve under the authority of political appointees and can be punished for their case outcomes.

🎲 The Asylum Lottery — Justice by Geography and Judge

As a result, asylum outcomes vary dramatically from one judge to another — even within the same courthouse. One judge may grant asylum in 70% of cases; the next may grant it in less than 10%.

This phenomenon, known as the “asylum lottery,” shows that the same claim could be approved or denied depending on something as arbitrary as courtroom assignment. Such a system would be unacceptable in criminal or civil court — yet it’s standard practice in immigration proceedings.

🔍 My Personal Experience: Two Different Worlds

As an immigration attorney, I’ve represented clients in San Francisco and in Texas immigration courts — and the difference in judicial culture is stark.

In San Francisco, I’ve seen judges who are thoughtful, deeply engaged with the facts, and open to complex asylum theories. In Texas, some courts operate with a much more rigid, enforcement-focused tone — where judges are far less likely to grant asylum, even in cases involving clear persecution.

It feels like two different countries within the same legal system. The same evidence that might win in San Francisco could lead to a quick denial in Texas.

This is not how justice should work.

In contrast, when I’ve argued appeals before federal circuit courts, I’ve found the judges to be far more consistent, professional, and predictable in their reasoning. Even when they rule against us, the legal standards are clearer, and their decisions are rooted in constitutional process — not political directives or performance metrics.

🕐 Law in Constant Flux — Political Winds Shape Legal Standards

Immigration law is one of the most politically volatile areas of U.S. policy. Every administration issues new regulations, memos, and interpretations that can change asylum standards overnight.

For example:

– What counts as a “particular social group” — a core element of many asylum claims — can be broadly or narrowly interpreted depending on who holds the office of Attorney General.

– The threshold for what constitutes “credible fear” can be raised or lowered without legislative input.

– Entire categories of asylum eligibility can be restricted or expanded based solely on internal agency memos, not acts of Congress.

These shifts make it incredibly difficult for attorneys and judges alike to rely on stable precedent — leading to unpredictable outcomes for clients.

👨‍⚖️ The Role of Attorneys Is Diminished — But Still Critical

In regular courts, attorneys have a central role in presenting arguments, challenging evidence, and influencing judges and juries. In immigration court, the role of counsel is more limited, especially because immigration judges are under pressure to move cases quickly and may restrict testimony or cut off arguments mid-hearing.

However — and this is crucial — having an attorney still dramatically increases your chances of success.

According to multiple studies, asylum seekers with legal representation are over six times more likely to win their case than those without an attorney.

Yet thousands of immigrants appear in court completely unrepresented, including children, trauma survivors, and non-English speakers. Many have valid claims but lose because they don’t understand how to gather evidence, follow procedures, or meet tight deadlines.

📑 Formalities and Technicalities Can Lead to Deportation

Immigration court is notorious for punishing procedural errors. An applicant can lose their entire case simply because:

– A required document was not translated correctly.

– A one-page form was submitted a day late.

– A key witness wasn’t listed on a preliminary submission.

– Evidence was excluded because it wasn’t filed in triplicate or didn’t meet formatting rules.

These types of technical mistakes — which would often be forgiven or cured in federal court — can result in irreversible denials and orders of removal in immigration proceedings.

🏛️ Federal Appeals: A More Stable Path

If an asylum case is denied, the next step is often the U.S. Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit Court). This is where the case leaves the administrative system and enters the true judicial branch.

In the federal appellate system:

– Judges are appointed for life and are fully independent.

– Cases are reviewed based on the law, not politics.

– Legal precedent is applied consistently across jurisdictions.

– Judges issue detailed written opinions, offering transparency and stability.

While federal appeals are limited to reviewing legal errors (not re-evaluating facts), they offer a more certain and principled environment than the immigration court system below.

As someone who practices in both systems, I can say confidently: federal judges are more consistent, less ideologically driven, and more predictable in their decisions — regardless of which circuit you appear in. That is the hallmark of an independent judiciary.

🔦 Final Thoughts

The immigration court system is broken by design. It lacks judicial independence, is vulnerable to political interference, and regularly delivers unjust outcomes because of formalities, inconsistency, and lack of due process.

If you or a loved one is in immigration court:

– Don’t go it alone.

– Seek legal counsel.

– Know your rights.