san francisco — There are no more immigrants waiting for rulings in San Francisco’s main immigration court, and no lawyers presenting arguments.
The court, which had 21 judges when President Donald Trump was sworn in last year, had only two remaining when it closed on May 1. The rest had been fired, retired, or resigned in between Cleaning the White House From federal immigration judges.
One conclusion More reflection of disorder This has upended the immigration court system, as the administration looks for ways to address a massive backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases and deport as many people as possible.
Asylum rejection rates This percentage rose as the administration fired nearly 100 judges deemed too liberal, and agreed to use hundreds of military lawyers to replace them. Immigrants are arrested when they arrive at courts or government offices for a scheduled appearance.
But amid the country’s turmoil, San Francisco is the first major city left without an immigration court, leaving chaos and dysfunction in an area long known for its friendliness to asylum seekers. The remaining two judges will work out of another federal building in the city, but will be part of the Trans-Bay Immigration Court.
Court insiders say this reputation may have led to its downfall.
“It was a vibrant legal landscape, and so I think if you’re looking to target a court, you’re going to have to look at what San Francisco represents,” said Jeremiah Johnson, the city’s immigration judge until his firing in November. He is now Executive Vice President of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
Most of the court’s 117,000 immigration cases were transferred to a court in Concord, a city about 30 miles (48 kilometers) away that opened two years ago to help with San Francisco’s backlog of cases. But the unrest also reached that city. The court, which had 11 justices at the start of 2025, is down to five after a series of dismissals. It had 60,000 cases even before the San Francisco cases were transferred.
The San Francisco Immigration Court, which has the third-largest number of asylum cases in the country, has long been considered one of the most favorable courts for people seeking asylum. From 2019 to 2024, nearly 75% of petitioners received some form of relief, compared to 43% nationwide, according to data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonprofit data research center based at Syracuse University.
This is partly because San Francisco, with its vast network of pro-immigrant organizations and free or low-cost legal services, had one of the highest rates of immigrant legal representation in the country.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the branch of the Justice Department that oversees immigration courts, announced in March that it would close the San Francisco court in 2027 as a cost-saving measure and move its cases to Concord. But the end came early after almost all of San Francisco’s judges left or were fired. The Executive Office did not provide any detailed explanation for the changes, saying only in a statement that it had decided not to renew the court’s lease, and did not comment on personnel matters.
Security is tight at the Concord courthouse, perhaps because of the new influx of cases. Armed security guards ask each person if they are carrying weapons or explosives, and watch each person turn off their cell phone. Even coffee is not allowed. Only water is allowed, and only if it is in a transparent bottle.
Judah Lakin, an Oakland-based immigration lawyer who also teaches at the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the San Francisco courthouse closure has made cases take longer because it is harder for his clients, who often travel hours away, to get to Concord by public transportation.
One recent 10-minute hearing in Concord took more than two hours of travel, he said.
But beyond logistics, Lakin said the chaos in immigration courts under the Trump administration has created a risky atmosphere in the courts. Mass dismissals have led to hearings being canceled at the last minute, cases being reset without warning, and clients are often left in a long-term legal limbo, making them vulnerable to deportation.
He said that one of his clients was granted temporary asylum by the judge, who was then dismissed before signing the decision. The case was referred to a second judge, who was also dismissed. Now, in their third ruling, his client is still waiting.
“The ground is constantly shifting beneath your feet, whether it’s firing judges and canceling hearings, getting your clients arrested, or denying things that were once normal and routine,” Lakin said.
“I think this is intentional. This is by design. It’s part of the strategy,” he added.
The San Francisco Immigration Court was one of the first in the country to appoint judges from non-prosecuting backgrounds, many of whom have prior experience working with immigrants in nonprofit organizations or defending them in court.
Dana Lee Marks, a former immigration judge in San Francisco who retired in 2021 after 35 years on the bench and who was among the first judges in the country to be appointed from private practice, said it was “heartbreaking” to see the court close.
She sees the Trump administration’s decision to close Northern California’s largest immigration court as part of an attempt to undermine due process and ultimately dismantle the asylum pathway.
“It’s all part of the big ways and the little ways the Trump administration is trying to get noncitizens out of the country,” she said.
Johnson, the fired judge in San Francisco, was appointed during Trump’s first administration. He believes he was targeted because he was granted asylum in 89% of the cases he heard.
“You can’t fire judges if you don’t agree with the way they handle a case, that’s not how courts work. If you don’t agree with that, you can appeal that decision,” he said.
Johnson, who is executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, defended his judicial record, noting that over eight years, only about 10 of his cases were appealed by the Department of Homeland Security, and only a very small number of cases were returned for further hearings by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
In contrast to federal courts, where there are strict procedural rules and where judges hold office for life, the Department of Justice runs the immigration courts, and the attorney general can remove judges with fewer restrictions.
There were 754 immigration judges across the country at the beginning of Trump’s second term. Their number now stands at about 600, including some temporary judges, according to data collected by the Judges Syndicate. Widespread detentions of immigrants in court have caused hundreds of people to not even show up for hearings, resulting in deportation orders being issued in absentia.
Nidaa Pervaiz attended the Concord Courthouse one day recently to represent a client from Nepal. She prefers the new court in some ways, because it is closer to her home.
But she said she and her clients are already feeling the impact of the changes. Fewer judges lead to fewer hearings. That means more delays for her clients, whose paperwork could expire before they can even appear before a judge.
“Their whole lives are at stake, and they are coming to make a plea for their future,” she said.