The Trump administration has issued a directive instructing immigration judges to swiftly dismiss asylum claims deemed "legally deficient," even without holding full hearings, a move that legal experts and advocates say undermines due process and could lead to deportations without applicants ever appearing before a judge.
The policy, outlined in an April 11 memo from Sirce Owen, Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), encourages judges to "immediately resolve cases" that lack viable legal pathways for relief.
Under the new guidance, judges may deny asylum requests based solely on paperwork, bypassing what are known as "merits hearings" where applicants would normally testify and submit evidence in person. The EOIR maintains that hearings are only required when there are factual disputes—not when an application is legally inadequate on its face.
"It is clear from the almost 4 million pending cases on EOIR's docket that has not been happening," Owen wrote, according to The New York Times.
Immigration law scholars consulted by NYT argue that the directive contravenes legal norms. "Immigration judges must use independent judgment," said Lenni Benson, a professor at New York Law School. "They must allow a person to submit, supplement, and testify to the facts supporting their request for asylum." Mary Giovagnoli, an immigration lawyer and former government official, warned that the policy "is flipping the notion of due process on its head."
Critics also say the policy jeopardizes asylum seekers without legal representation, an estimated half of all applicants, who may not fully understand or articulate the grounds for their claims on initial forms. "The outcome for an asylum seeker can literally make the difference between life or death," said immigration attorney Careen Shannon.
The policy comes amid mass terminations at the EOIR. Back in February 2025, thirteen immigration judges appointed under the Biden administration were fired in what the Department of Justice characterized as a budgetary measure.
The judges, who had not yet completed training, have since filed a class action lawsuit alleging unlawful dismissal and violations of civil service protections. The plaintiffs argue the firings reflect a political effort to reshape the immigration bench.
With only about 735 immigration judges now serving nearly 4 million pending cases—roughly 6,000 cases per judge—advocates fear that the combination of judicial attrition and expedited procedures will lead to rushed decisions with life-altering consequences.
Originally published on Latin Times
© 2025 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
