How the US Immigration Court Process Works
The US immigration court system is administered by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), part of the Department of Justice. Unlike federal courts, immigration courts are administrative courts, they operate within the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
Step 1: Notice to Appear (NTA)
The process begins when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) files a Notice to Appear (NTA) with the immigration court. The NTA lists the allegations against the respondent (the person in removal proceedings) and sets the initial hearing date.
Common reasons for receiving an NTA include: entering without authorization, overstaying a visa, or being referred by USCIS after a denied application.
Step 2: Master Calendar Hearing
The first hearing is a brief "master calendar" hearing, typically 5-10 minutes. The respondent appears before the immigration judge and may: admit or deny the charges in the NTA, indicate what form of relief they will seek (asylum, cancellation of removal, etc.), and schedule the individual merits hearing.
Master calendar hearings are administrative in nature. They are used to set timelines and understand what relief will be sought. Cases may have multiple master calendar hearings before scheduling an individual hearing.
Step 3: Individual Merits Hearing
The individual hearing (also called a "merits hearing") is the full evidentiary proceeding where the case is actually decided. This is where:
- The respondent and any witnesses testify
- Evidence (country condition reports, medical records, etc.) is submitted
- The DHS attorney (representing the government) cross-examines
- Both sides make legal arguments
- The immigration judge issues a decision, grant, denial, or other outcome
Step 4: Appeals
If either side disagrees with the immigration judge's decision, they may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). From the BIA, further appeals may go to the federal circuit courts of appeals.
Why Does This Take So Long?
As of 2024, the US immigration court system has a backlog exceeding 3 million pending cases, the result of decades of underfunding, understaffing, and policy changes. Average wait times at many courts exceed 4 years from filing to a final decision.
PlainImmigration shows backlog and wait time data by court, so you can see which courts are most overburdened.
How Outcomes Are Measured
Immigration court decisions fall into several categories:
- Grant: Relief is approved (e.g., asylum granted, cancellation of removal approved)
- Denial: Relief is denied; the respondent may be ordered removed
- Termination/Administrative Closure: Case is closed without a decision on the merits
- Voluntary Departure: Respondent agrees to leave voluntarily
- Prosecutorial Discretion: DHS withdraws the case
PlainImmigration shows grant and denial rates. The "grant rate" is the percentage of decided cases where relief was granted.
The Backlog, in Real Numbers
The pending-case counts and average wait times behind the backlog vary by court and change as EOIR's case data is re-published. Rather than restate a fixed snapshot here, see Immigration Court Backlogs, which computes the current national pending-case total and the longest-wait courts directly from PlainImmigration's live EOIR extract.
Judge Assignment and Case Outcomes
Cases are typically assigned to judges on a rotational basis within each court. Because individual judges have dramatically different grant rates, the same type of case can have vastly different outcomes depending on assignment. See The Judge Lottery Effect for the current highest- and lowest-granting judges computed live from the same EOIR extract, and Judge Grant Rate Rankings for the full list.
What You Can Do
While you cannot choose your judge, you can prepare strategically:
- Research your court's judge profiles: PlainImmigration shows grant rates by judge, so you or your attorney can understand tendencies before the hearing.
- File strong country condition evidence: Country reports from the State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch carry significant weight with all judges.
- Prepare consistent testimony: Judges who grant at lower rates tend to scrutinize inconsistencies more aggressively. Meticulous preparation of your timeline matters more than with higher-granting judges.
- Secure representation: Having an attorney who practices regularly before your specific court is the single most impactful step.