Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Immigration judge
| What is a federal administrative adjudicator? Federal administrative adjudicators are federal government officials who preside over administrative hearings and proceedings in a process called adjudication. These officials can be divided into two categories: administrative law judges (ALJs) and non-ALJ adjudicators, sometimes referred to as administrative judges (AJs). Although many of these officials have the word judge in their job title, administrative adjudicators are part of the executive rather than the judicial branch. They are not judges as described in Article III of the Constitution. |
| Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| •Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Immigration judges (IJs) are a type of federal administrative adjudicator sometimes collectively referred to as administrative judges, or non-ALJ adjudicators. IJs are employed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and preside over special classes of administrative adjudication proceedings pertaining to immigration matters, including removal proceedings.[1][2]
Background
- See also: Federal administrative adjudicators
Immigration judges (IJs) are a type of federal administrative adjudicator sometimes collectively referred to as administrative judges, or non-ALJ adjudicators. IJs are attorneys appointed by the U.S. attorney general to preside over special classes of adjudication proceedings pertaining to immigration matters, including removal proceedings. They have the authority to conduct hearings, make findings, and issue decisions in immigration cases. Appealed decisions from IJs are heard by the DOJ's Board of Immigration Appeals, which has the authority to issue binding decisions unless overruled by the U.S. attorney general or federal courts.[2][3]
Though IJs and other types of administrative judges have the word judge in their job title, they are part of the executive rather than the judicial branch. They are not judges as described in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
The DOJ employed about 600 IJs as of March 2024.[4]
Non-ALJ adjudicators
Non-ALJ adjudicators are distinct from administrative law judges (ALJs). Unlike ALJs, non-ALJ adjudicators are not covered by the Administrative Procedure Act and their positions are not standardized across the government. Their work, titles, qualifications, and pay vary substantially. Non-ALJs preside over informal adjudication proceedings, which may involve a hearing or a written process. Non-ALJs conduct the majority of federal agency adjudication proceedings.[1]
There were more than 10,000 non-ALJ adjudicators working at various federal agencies as of February 2018, the most recent year for which comprehensive data was available at the time of this article's last update in March 2024. The largest employers of non-ALJs at the time were the Patent and Trademark Office at the Department of Commerce (7,856 patent examiners), the Internal Revenue Service (714 non-ALJs), the Department of Veterans Affairs (630 non-ALJs), and the National Labor Relations Board (600 non-ALJs).[1]
Noteworthy events
Garland restores immigration judges’ authority to delay deportations (2021)
Attorney General Merrick Garland on July 15 issued a decision in a case before the Board of Immigration Appeals that reversed a Trump administration policy preventing immigration judges (IJs) from exercising administrative closure—a process that allows IJs to delay the deportation of individuals awaiting green cards or visas.[5][6]
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a 2018 decision that barred IJs from pausing deportation proceedings through administrative closure. “Although described as a temporary suspension,” claimed Sessions, “administrative closure is effectively permanent in most instances.” Sessions further argued that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), rather than IJs, “has the exclusive authority to decide whether and when to initiate proceedings.”[5][7]
Three courts of appeals later rejected Sessions’ position and held that the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) regulations grant IJs the authority to exercise administrative closure. Garland agreed with the judges in his decision, stating that “administrative closure is ‘plainly within an immigration judge’s authority’ under Department of Justice regulations.” DOJ officials initiated rulemaking procedures in December 2020 aimed at codifying IJs’ administrative closure authority, barring a subsequent DOJ regulation or federal court ruling to the contrary.[5][6]
Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told the Associated Press that Garland’s decision to revive administrative closure will allow IJs to “clear our dockets so we’re dealing with cases that are really ready for hearings.” Former Justice Department official Gene Hamilton, on the other hand, argued that the resurgence of administrative closure will allow individuals residing in the country without legal permission to avoid deportation.[5]
FLRA hears testimony, decertifies IJ union (2020)
The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) on January 7, 2020, held a hearing to consider testimony on a petition filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in August that seeks to decertify the union representing the agency’s immigration judges (IJs), the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).[2][8]
DOJ last attempted to decertify the NAIJ in 2000 under the Clinton administration, claiming at the time that IJs function in management roles and cannot legally participate in collective bargaining activities. FLRA rejected DOJ's petition in 2000, but DOJ has since contended, in part, that changes to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) review process in 2002 relaxed oversight of IJ decisions and strengthened IJs' policymaking authority.[2][9]
DOJ attorneys argued in the hearing that IJs are management officials who cannot participate in union activities. Federal law defines management officials as "any individual employed by an agency in a position the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency.” IJs qualify as management officials, according to DOJ, because they can issue final orders that set binding precedent for agency policy.[2][8]
NAIJ attorneys disagreed with DOJ’s assessment, arguing that IJs do not serve in management roles because management responsibilities would prevent them from focusing on immigration hearings. Moreover, the attorneys contended that orders issued by IJs can be appealed and reviewed, which limits their ability to set agency policy.[2][8]
FLRA members on November 2, 2020, voted 2-1 to decertify the union.[10]
DOJ seeks to decertify IJ union (2019)
DOJ officials announced on August 9, 2019, that the department is petitioning the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)—the federal labor union representing immigration judges.[11]
DOJ claims that immigration judges are management officials and, therefore, cannot legally participate in collective bargaining activities. Federal law defines management officials as "any individual employed by an agency in a position the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency.”[11]
Decertification of the NAIJ could give DOJ officials more control over the work schedules and caseloads of immigration judges.[11]
DOJ requests funding for additional IJs (2019)
DOJ officials called for increased funding to hire an additional 100 immigration judges and support staff in its 2020 budget request. The agency employed 412 immigration judges as of March 2019.[12]
DOJ announces 50 percent increase in number of IJs by end of 2018 (2018)
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on September 10, 2018, that the DOJ planned a 50 percent increase in the number of its IJs by the end of the year. Sessions made the announcement in remarks before a cohort of 44 new IJs—the largest class of new IJs in U.S. history. The agency faced a backlog of more than 730,000 cases as of September 2018.[13][14]
Cruz announces proposal to double number of federal IJs (2018)
On June 19, 2018, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced the Protect Kids and Parents Act—legislation that would implement policy changes aimed at keeping the children of detained immigrants who entered the country illegally with their parents.[15][16]
Among the proposed policy changes in the legislation, the bill would double the number of federal immigration judges from 375 to 750.[15]
DOJ announces new quotas for IJs (2018)
On March 31, 2018, DOJ sent a message to its IJs announcing that new case quotas for IJs would take effect on October 1 in an effort to reduce the agency’s case backlog. DOJ stated that it will begin to evaluate the job performance of IJs based on how quickly they process cases, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.[17]
The new standards will require IJs to process 700 cases a year. On average, IJs complete 678 cases per year. The new standards will also require that higher courts send back fewer than 15 percent of a judge's rulings, in addition to other metrics. The WSJ reported that DOJ’s backlog is nearing 700,000 cases.[17]
Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated in a December memo that the “timely and efficient adjudication of immigration cases” is in “the national interest.” IJs have expressed concern, however, that the new standards could compromise their integrity by compelling judges to process cases quickly at the expense of hearing out the evidence in complex cases.[17]
See also
- Concepts, terms, and definitions related to the administrative state
- Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Administrative Conference of the United Sates, "Non-ALJ Adjudicators in Federal Agencies: Status, Selection, Oversight, and Removal," February 14, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Immigration Judge," accessed April 1, 2025 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "gov" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, "BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS," accessed April 1, 2025
- ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, "Office of the Chief Immigration Judge," March 25, 2024
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 ABA Journal, "Garland restores discretion to immigration judges in ‘administrative closure’ decision," July 16, 2021
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, "Matter of CRUZ-VALDEZ, Respondent," July 15, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, "Matter of CASTRO-TUM, Respondent," May 17, 2018
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Law.com, "Immigration Judges, Joined by Latham & Watkins, Fight DOJ Effort to Decertify Union," January 7, 2020
- ↑ Center for Immigration Studies, "Clinton Failed to Decertify the Immigration Judges' Union — Will Trump Succeed?" January 8, 2020
- ↑ Center for Immigration Studies, "FLRA Decertifies Immigration Judges' Union," November 5, 2020
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Fox News, "Trump administration seeks to break up immigration judges' union," August 10, 2019
- ↑ Fox News, "DOJ seeks $72M to hire more than 100 immigration judges, attorneys to help clear massive asylum backlog," March 11, 2019
- ↑ Politico, "Sessions says he plans a 50 percent surge in immigration judges," September 10, 2018
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "Sessions Tells Judges Efficiency Key to Handling Ballooning Immigration Dockets," September 10, 2018
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 CBS News, "Ted Cruz says all who saw images of children pulled from parents 'were horrified,'" June 18, 2018
- ↑ U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, "Sen. Cruz Introduces the Protect Kids and Parents Act," June 19, 2018
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 The Wall Street Journal, "New Quotas for Immigration Judges as Trump Administration Seeks Faster Deportations," April 2, 2018
