The San Francisco Immigration Court closure and reported immigration judge firings raise serious due process concerns for asylum seekers and families in removal proceedings. Learn what immigrants should do now and how Spar and Bernstein can help.
The transcript focuses on a major shakeup at one of the busiest immigration court systems in the country. Official Department of Justice notices confirm that EOIR stopped holding hearings at the San Francisco Immigration Court’s Montgomery Street location effective May 1, 2026, with certain cases reassigned to the Sansome Street location and filings for those reassigned cases moved there beginning May 4, 2026. EOIR later announced that the San Francisco Immigration Court would permanently close, with the Sansome Street location becoming a hearing location under the administrative control of the Concord Immigration Court at the close of business on September 4, 2026. EOIR stated that the move was determined to be more cost effective and that new hearing notices would be issued for reassigned cases.
The judge removal numbers have been reported slightly differently across outlets, but the core picture is clear. ABC7 reported that at least 21 immigration judges serving the San Francisco Bay Area had been fired, many reportedly without a reason or explanation. KQED reported that San Francisco’s court had 21 judges earlier in the year and was down to four, while handling more than 120,000 pending cases. The Guardian reported that the closure followed the firing of 20 of 22 judges and that much of the court’s work was being shifted to Concord.
Immigration judges are not the same as federal district court judges with lifetime appointments. EOIR, which sits inside the Department of Justice, says its mission is to adjudicate immigration cases under delegated authority from the Attorney General. EOIR’s own policy manual explains that immigration judges determine removability and adjudicate applications for relief or protection from removal, including asylum and related protection claims.
That structure is why this story is so important. These judges decide whether a person may be removed from the United States, whether an asylum seeker receives protection, whether a person may remain with family, and whether a case moves forward toward relief or appeal. When a busy court loses most of its bench and its docket is transferred, immigrants can face rescheduled hearings, new locations, new judges, longer delays, missing notices, and serious confusion.
The Department of Justice has presented the San Francisco court change as a matter of court operations and cost effectiveness. EOIR’s notices state that cases will be adjudicated at Concord or remotely and that new notices will be issued to affected parties.
At the same time, national reporting shows a broader policy debate. The Associated Press reported that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department was targeting immigration judges it viewed as too slow or not properly applying the law, while critics argue that the administration is remaking immigration courts to accelerate deportations and reduce due process protections. AP also noted that immigration courts fall under the Justice Department and that the Attorney General can fire immigration judges with fewer restraints than apply in Article III federal courts.
From an immigration law perspective, the practical answer is that immigrants should not wait for the political debate to settle. Whether this is described as restructuring, efficiency, or court reshaping, the result for people in removal proceedings is the same: every hearing notice must be reviewed, every deadline must be protected, and every case strategy must be updated.
The government has said it is working to reduce the immigration court backlog, and EOIR announced in 2025 that it had reduced the pending caseload from more than 4.18 million to under 3.75 million cases. TRAC data later listed more than 3.28 million pending immigration court cases nationally through March 2026, including more than 348,000 in California.
Even with those reductions, the system remains under enormous pressure. A court with more than 120,000 pending cases cannot lose judges and shift operations without affecting real families. Delays can make evidence harder to gather, witnesses harder to locate, and memories harder to preserve. For asylum seekers, time matters because country conditions, trauma records, expert reports, and family circumstances can all affect the strength of a case.
Anyone with a case connected to San Francisco, Concord, or another immigration court affected by operational changes should immediately confirm the next hearing date, the assigned court, the assigned judge if available, and the correct filing location. EOIR’s operational status page states that court notices are the official source for case information and directs people to check the Automated Case Information System for case updates.
This is not a small administrative issue. EOIR’s practice guidance warns that any delay in appearing at a master calendar or individual hearing may result in a person being ordered removed in absentia, meaning ordered removed when the person is not present. Federal regulations also provide that a removal order may be entered in absentia when the government proves removability and proper written notice.
The safest approach is to keep copies of every notice, file address changes promptly, track mail carefully, save proof of delivery for all filings, and consult counsel before missing a hearing or assuming a hearing was canceled. If a person has already missed court because of notice confusion, relocation, language barriers, detention, or a court transfer, an attorney may be able to evaluate whether a motion to reopen is available.
At The Law Offices of Spar and Bernstein, our immigration team understands that court chaos can create fear, but fear is not a strategy. A strong strategy starts with a full review of the record, including the Notice to Appear, prior hearing notices, asylum application, evidence, work authorization history, family petitions, criminal records if any, and any prior orders.
For immigrants affected by the San Francisco Immigration Court closure or a transfer to Concord, an attorney can help confirm the correct court, update addresses, prepare filings, request venue changes where appropriate, organize asylum evidence, respond to government motions, prepare testimony, preserve appeal rights, and act quickly if a hearing was missed. In a system that is moving fast and changing often, legal preparation can make the difference between confusion and a clear path forward.
The San Francisco Immigration Court story is a reminder that immigration law is not just politics. It is procedure, deadlines, evidence, testimony, and due process. When judges are removed, courts are closed, and cases are transferred, immigrants need accurate information and strong legal representation more than ever.
Families should not rely on viral videos, rumors, or comment sections. They should rely on official notices, case records, and experienced immigration counsel. Spar and Bernstein can help immigrants understand what changed, what did not change, and what steps can protect their future in the United States.
