In a notable move by the Trump administration, the top immigration judge in San Francisco, Loi McCleskey, was terminated on Tuesday, marking the seventh dismissal from the office since January. This trend has sparked apprehension regarding whether the White House is intentionally targeting judges who resist the administration’s wishes.
According to an internal email reviewed by KQED, McCleskey, who has held the position of assistant chief immigration judge for just over a year, was let go by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. This office is responsible for adjudicating immigration cases and managing national immigration law.
The mass firings resonate with a broader national pattern, where over 100 immigration judges have been dismissed since President Donald Trump assumed office, as highlighted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
In her farewell message to the office team, McCleskey expressed gratitude, saying, “It has been an honor to serve as your ACIJ and to work alongside such a dedicated and talented group of professionals.”
McCleskey’s role extended beyond her individual cases; she supervised all the judges in the San Francisco immigration court, known for granting asylum at rates exceeding the national average. According to data from Transaction Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, the San Francisco office has facilitated a more favorable outcome for asylum seekers, which local attorneys attribute to various factors. These include better representation for asylum seekers and differing standards for adjudication compared to other states.
The recent firings, including that of six other judges in San Francisco, have led many local attorneys and former court staff to speculate that these dismissals are aimed at judges who are more likely to grant asylum and possess a history of defending immigrant rights.
Former immigration judge Dana Leigh Marks characterized the firings as ideologically driven, emphasizing that the administration seems to be targeting judges who think independently and consider both sides of a case before making a ruling.
Statistics reveal that McCleskey granted asylum to more than 72% of the cases she presided over, a significantly higher percentage than the national average, which has typically remained below 50% in recent years. Within the Bay Area, this rate aligns more closely with the region’s norm.
Among the three judges in San Francisco with the highest asylum-granting rates, all have been terminated in recent months. Judge Shira Levine, who was dismissed last week, acknowledged McCleskey’s profound respect among her colleagues and her adept management of the court amid challenging political circumstances.
Levine articulated concerns that the current administration is fostering disorder within immigration courts, targeting judges who strictly adhere to established procedures.
In an alarming policy change, the DOJ recently relaxed the qualifications for temporary judge positions, eliminating the prerequisite of prior immigration experience, and concurrently authorized 600 military lawyers to fill these roles.
Levine critiqued the administration’s actions, asserting that the termination of McCleskey reflects an intention to supplant judicious, knowledgeable judges with individuals lacking relevant expertise, possibly drawn from military backgrounds. This shift raises serious questions about the future integrity and fairness of the immigration court system.
image source from：kqed
