A troubling trend is emerging in San Francisco’s immigration court as some asylum-seekers appear to be skipping their scheduled hearings out of fear of detention. On a recent Friday, only five attendees showed up for their hearings out of 15 scheduled, raising concerns about how fear is impacting their ability to seek asylum at the immigration court located at 630 Sansome St.
Judge Joseph Park presided remotely over the first case. He scheduled the asylum-seeker’s final hearing for 2028, allowing the individual to leave shortly after without further ado.
However, other asylum-seekers that day faced more daunting circumstances. In subsequent cases, attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security sought to dismiss the asylum claims, a tactic frequently employed by the Trump administration to detain immigrants and ultimately remove them from the country. At that moment, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents waited ominously in the hallway, ready to arrest asylum-seekers immediately upon exiting the courtroom.
Interestingly, in contrast to some judges in San Francisco who attempt to warn asylum-seekers using coded language, Judge Park appeared to provide a clearer path. He allowed the asylum-seekers the opportunity to respond either verbally or in writing to the government’s dismissal motions, but he chose not to rule on any that day.
One young man, just 20 years old, decided to respond in writing. Accompanied by Reverend Joanna Lawrence Shank and four members from the First Mennonite Church of San Francisco, he disclosed that he had applied for an alternative visa available to youths who have been abandoned by their families in their home countries. Showing this application in court, he passionately pleaded with the judge not to dismiss his case, stressing his legal right to be heard. He further implied that judges may be pressured to grant these dismissals, voicing, “Only the court has the power to decide which cases get dismissed.”
In response, Judge Park indicated he would address the motion from Homeland Security within a few days. Yet, the young asylum-seeker’s fears surfaced when he voiced, “Simply that I’m afraid to go back to my country, and please look at my situation, and God bless you.”
As the first hearings concluded, an atmosphere of desperation settled in the courtroom. The 20-year-old was later seen hugging the first asylum-seeker who had also faced a dismissal motion. In a moment of anguish, the latter man was found crying while trying to reach out to someone via text on his phone.
The hearings continued with two women who also faced the same fate of dismissal. Confusion and apprehension marked their responses to the motions. They were given the option to respond in writing within ten days before the judge could make a ruling. Both women opted to take this course.
As the hearings wrapped up, the volunteer attorney, providing assistance through the Attorney of the Day Program, addressed the group of four asylum-seekers in Spanish, cautioning, “Don’t say anything, don’t sign anything,” as they prepared to leave.
Moments later, as they exited the courtroom, ICE agents swiftly apprehended all four individuals. Shank, along with the four from the Mennonite Church, was emotionally present, holding the young man’s hand tightly until ICE took him away. In an act of solidarity, they began to sing, “Lord, listen to your children praying,” as they processed the heartbreaking developments.
Typically, those apprehended in the San Francisco immigration court are taken to the sixth floor of the 630 Sansome St. building for temporary processing. From there, they are transferred to longer-term detention facilities located elsewhere in California or across the nation, with no such facilities situated in the Bay Area.
In an environment heavily fraught with anxiety, asylum-seekers grapple with the harsh reality that missing a court hearing could lead to summary deportation. Even arriving late to a hearing, without valid justification, can result in the judges dismissing their entire cases.
After the emotional departures of the asylum-seekers, fresh tensions arose within the courtroom. Nearby, attorneys typically use a designated room to have private discussions with asylum-seekers in need of legal counsel. Earlier, a dispute erupted when a longtime attorney reported that her path had been blocked by an ICE officer, which unnerved the asylum-seeker accompanying her.
Following the arrests, a woman believed to be leading the ICE officers approached the attorney’s room. Accompanied by another ICE officer clad in intimidating attire, including tactical gear and a ski mask, she confronted the attorney, accusing her of being hostile.
The seasoned attorney asserted that the officers were instilling fear in vulnerable individuals. This sparked an argument as the shadowing attorney attempted to de-escalate the situation. The male ICE officer claimed their presence was justified because it was a federal building.
This confrontation culminated in the female ICE officer requesting that the long-serving attorney be banned from further access to the building. After a brief departure, a security guard, apparently acting on the ICE officer’s instruction, sought the attorney’s name. Ultimately, she was allowed to remain for a time before exiting the premises under the watchful gaze of the ICE officers.
The atmosphere inside the court has left many individuals anxious about seeking justice in a system that often feels predatory to those who are vulnerable. As the asylum-seekers navigate bureaucratic hurdles while coping with real fear for their safety and future, the ongoing tension reflects wider systemic issues facing many across the country.
image source from：missionlocal
