The Salt Lake City Immigration Court has experienced a significant reduction in its number of judges since President Donald Trump took office in January.
Currently, the court operates with just four judges, down from six, which raises concerns among immigration attorneys about the potential impact on case processing times and deportation proceedings.
An attorney in Utah expressed worry that with fewer judges, the government might hasten deportations by circumventing the courts altogether.
As of July 12, Judge Douglas Nelson’s name was absent from the Salt Lake City Immigration Court staff directory, despite being listed just ten days earlier, on July 2.
Nelson had served as a judge at the court for nearly two years, having been appointed in August 2023 by the federal Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts nationwide.
Immigration judges are career employees, and the removal of Judge Nelson from the staff directory has sparked questions regarding his status.
Also removed earlier in the year was Judge Nathan Aina, which adds to the uncertainty among legal representatives.
Kathryn Mattingly, a spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, noted in June that the agency does not comment on personnel matters.
Currently, there are three dedicated judges in Utah, while another serves as the assistant chief immigration judge and primarily handles cases in Tacoma, Washington.
According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, 51,684 cases were pending in Utah’s immigration court as of May, with an average wait time of 530 days.
A significant portion of these pending cases involves individuals seeking asylum, especially immigrants who have lived in the United States for years and are pursuing cancellation of removal to obtain a green card.
In an email response to queries regarding Judge Nelson’s status, Mattingly stated that reducing the backlog in immigration courts remains a top priority for the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
She asserted that the agency is working to manage its caseload as effectively as possible while adhering to due process.
However, Black expressed concerns regarding the implications of Judge Nelson’s departure.
Reassigning Nelson’s cases to other judges is expected to be a monumental challenge, as Black noted that he had over a hundred cases assigned to Nelson that would need to be reallocated on another judge’s calendar.
“It’s going to result in fewer cases being adjudicated and longer wait times,” Black indicated, suggesting a potential contradiction to the Trump administration’s goals of increasing deportations.
He pointed out that some hearings are being scheduled as far out as January 2029, which raises questions about the efficiency of the immigration court system.
Black speculated about the federal government’s possible motives behind the reduction of judges, suggesting that the firings could indicate a strategy to expedite deportations through alternative means.
He expressed concerns about the use of expedited removal procedures, where individuals can be deported without the opportunity to present their cases before a judge.
An example highlighted was of an asylum seeker detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for what was described as being “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
ICE moved to facilitate expedited removal for this individual—meaning that if an asylum officer determined that the person did not have a credible fear of returning to their home country, they could be deported without judicial oversight.
Black conveyed his alarm, stating, “They’re basically saying, ‘We want to take this out of the hands of qualified immigration judges and give it to an ICE officer,'” which he believes undermines due process and the ability of individuals to have their asylum claims properly adjudicated.
Recent reports indicate that over a dozen immigration judges across the United States were dismissed in an effort to reshape the courts during Trump’s presidency.
Despite a slight decrease in the total number of pending cases nationally, suggesting that the administration’s efforts have had an impact, the approach to immigration enforcement raises significant concerns among legal experts and advocates.
The ongoing developments in the Salt Lake City Immigration Court reflect a broader trend of changes in immigration policy and its consequences for individuals seeking legal recourse in their cases.
image source from：kuer
