News Analysis
NEW ORLEANS—In a series of drab, windowless chambers lining a narrow hallway, migrants who have surged into the United States in recent years present themselves before immigration judges every weekday morning.
These makeshift courtrooms starkly contrast with the sunbaked border with Mexico or the bustling ports and airports that serve as entry points for millions of immigrants—almost all entering without authorization. Yet, despite the miles, the atmosphere, and often the language barriers, the individuals facing U.S. immigration courts—known in legal parlance as “alien respondents”—are acutely aware of the stakes involved.
For many, these court appearances represent their first opportunity to engage with the legal system after residing in the country for years. Through careful pleadings and strategic appeals, many of these individuals understand that they can potentially extend their stay for years. While headlines about the Trump administration’s immigration strategies, like mass arrests and deportations, capture public attention, the courtroom is where crucial decisions unfold—an area the administration is keen to reshape.
“A surprising number of these individuals know how to navigate the system to delay decisions, employing tactics such as requesting multiple continuances and filing dubious appeals,” explained Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge now affiliated with the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization advocating for stricter immigration controls. “While some may succeed, recent immigration court arrests suggest the administration aims to curb these tactics.”
RealClearInvestigations (RCI) recently observed several days of immigration court proceedings to shed light on a system grappling with a backlog exceeding 3.6 million cases, as reported by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). New Orleans represents just one aspect of a vast network of often obscure courts stretching from Massachusetts to Washington, and from the Northern Mariana Islands to Puerto Rico.
The New Orleans courts appeared bustling, reflecting a historical trend where the majority of immigrants adhere to their legal obligations, which often begins with a “Notice to Appear” issued upon apprehension at the border or after being paroled into the contiguous states.
“Historically, we’ve seen high attendance rates,” noted Kevin A. Gregg, an immigration attorney based in California who hosts the weekly “Immigration Review” podcast. “Those who have been in the U.S. for a long time tend to show up consistently.”
However, in a curious twist, the Trump administration’s recent commitment to ramp up arrests of undocumented immigrants to 3,000 per day and various procedural changes could ironically lead to decreased court attendance, according to Gregg and other critics of the administration’s policies. “Never underestimate the community,” they warn, as newcomers often learn about the legal landscape from those who have gone before them. If established wisdom suggests that court appearances may hasten deportations, many may choose to stay away.
“Under the current administration, [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] has been dismissing court proceedings to promptly detain noncitizens for expedited removal, which affords them fewer rights and no bond eligibility,” Gregg added. “Whether justified or not, many may perceive this as a trap, leading to a reluctance to appear in court.”
Already, the aggressive stance of the Trump administration has sparked litigation and civil unrest, from a Milwaukee judge allegedly aiding “alien respondents” to evade criminal proceedings to the ongoing riots in Los Angeles.
Facing the Bar
On a late May morning, four immigration courts in New Orleans operated, with nearly 140 individuals on the docket, the majority attending for their first appearances. On this particular day, no-shows accounted for a minor fraction of those listed on the “master calendars.” In Judge Joseph LaRocca’s courtroom, for example, only five out of over 30 respondents failed to appear, and their cases were swiftly handled “in absentia,” leading to removals.
That same day, in Judge Alberto A. De Puy’s courtroom, hearing proceedings involved as many as six languages. A Spanish translator was consistently available, while interpreters for other languages connected via phone. The hearings observed by RCI included Arabic, Hindi, Hassaniya, Turkish, and Konkani, emphasizing the diverse backgrounds of many Middle Eastern and Asian immigrants. The court’s small waiting area offered paperwork in seven languages, including Creole and Wolof.
De Puy’s master calendar hearing utilized Zoom with migrants from the federal detention center in Jena, Louisiana, where men clad in dull gray scrubs sat in rows while De Puy struggled to find translators. Outside the Jena facility, protests drew attention, especially as the site became notorious for holding individuals like Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist detained since the Trump administration took office.
No one can pinpoint the exact number of individuals appearing in U.S. immigration courts daily—“that would be a great statistic, wouldn’t it?” mused Susan Long, TRAC’s director. However, with over 700 immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General to administrative roles under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, extending the New Orleans morning sessions across each judge’s courtroom might help alleviate the backlog, which currently includes over 2 million pending asylum cases, according to TRAC.
This may seem like a fanciful notion, and the daunting numbers pose significant challenges for the Trump administration’s aim to dramatically reduce or eliminate the backlog. Nonetheless, some experts detect signs of improvement, as figures for illegal crossings have notably decreased.
“The situation is improving,” Arthur remarked. “It’s as if Trump patched a hole in the side of a boat, and now he’s bailing out the water.”
Despite the ongoing debates regarding due process protections that have stirred activists and the federal judiciary, the migrants appearing in New Orleans exhibit a keen understanding of immigration law, which allows their cases to extend for years.
Seated quietly in wooden pews and often accompanied by children, most respondents were presentable, with neatly styled hair. It seemed the children served as props; the judges frequently reminded parents that school should take precedence over court. Even during initial appearances, many respondents appeared well-informed about the proceedings.
Most master calendar cases stemmed from “notices to appear” (NTAs), and few of these were recent. For instance, most individuals RCI observed in court on May 22 had received their NTAs 1.5 years prior, although a select few had received them as recently as December 2024.
Many immigrants lacked legal representation, a decision court observers deemed prudent. During initial appearances, judges would inquire if individuals desired representation, clarifying that while the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee an attorney, the court maintains a list of immigration lawyers who may provide affordable or pro bono services. Typically, individuals opted for more time to find a lawyer, resulting in a new court date set for several months later, often in December.
For those not seeking additional time for legal representation, judges swiftly recited standard language, determining that the individual had entered the United States unlawfully and was subject to removal. At that juncture, judges would inquire if respondents wished to “designate a country for removal should removal become necessary,” with respondents or their attorneys usually opting to decline.
This delay tactic is well-understood, albeit often ineffective. Despite lack of response, judges would typically select a country for removal and schedule a subsequent removal hearing—sometimes as far off as 2029.
In essence, almost all “alien respondents” were granted substantial leeway. It was common to see individuals with six or more years between their arrival in the U.S. and a removal hearing.
‘A Lot More Detention’
The legal process differs for those detained, and attorneys and court officials have noted that “there is a lot more detention” currently under the Trump administration. De Puy’s master calendar involved detained individuals from Jena on one screen, with occasional immigration lawyers chiming in from separate offices and government attorneys from ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor appearing on another video feed.
De Puy allowed those making their first appearance months to secure counsel but was less accommodating for second appearances when individuals who had failed to find representation requested further time. During RCI’s observations, several men—who were all men—requested additional time, but De Puy denied these requests.
Some men sought “voluntary departure,” a tactic that historically enabled immigrants to disappear into the U.S. interior, thereby delaying their cases. The government attorney appeared cautious, granting “voluntary departure” only “with safeguards,” meaning those men would remain in detention until travel arrangements were finalized. The specifics of how and when this would happen remained ambiguous, given the migrant’s responsibility for their travel.
Other peculiarities emerged. For instance, De Puy repeatedly asked an Indian man, who had entered the U.S. in December 2023, if he wished to “designate a country of removal.” After hesitating the first time, the man responded, “I can’t go back to India.”
“The court will designate India as the country of removal,” De Puy promptly replied, prompting the man to say he would “like to go back to India” and requested “voluntary departure.”
Among the detainees at Jena who appeared that morning, only those pursuing voluntary departure appeared destined for imminent departure from the country.
The focus on detention isn’t the only significant alteration in proceedings under Trump compared to previous administrations. When RCI first visited immigration court in 2022, government attorneys often exercised what was termed “prosecutorial discretion.”
This essentially functioned as a “get out of court free” card. Judges would inform individuals receiving prosecutorial discretion, “You are free to go and live your life; the government has no interest in removing you.”
It remains unclear how many undocumented immigrants benefited from the Biden administration’s prosecutorial discretion, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not responded to inquiries about it. Those benefiting from this were in addition to the over 2.8 million individuals whom the Biden administration paroled into the country, a maneuver later deemed illegal by federal courts.
Under Trump, a similar approach is taken but with a different tone. Occasionally, DHS lawyers would announce that the government was “dropping charges” because the individual was “no longer an enforcement priority.” This shift does not alter the individual’s previous status of being “removable,” and dropping the charges enables DHS to arrest and deport the individual at any time.
This has led to arrests occurring right outside immigration courts, from Boston to New Orleans. Although ICE agents cannot be present outside every courtroom daily, this new strategy could lead to many immigrants choosing to forgo court appearances as word spreads through the community about the potential risks involved.
LaRocca expressed concern over this trend, which, similar to some of the novel shifts in immigration law under the Biden administration, has triggered federal litigation. At one point, when the government unexpectedly moved to drop charges, LaRocca asked the immigrant whether he preferred to accept that arrangement, which would leave him “without status” and still subject to removal, or proceed to a removal hearing. The underlying message was clear: the United States may pursue deportation at any moment.
Despite facing criticism for the lack of due process experienced by migrants deported to El Salvador, judges in New Orleans consistently clarified the options available to those in court. Nearly every time judges inquired if individuals wished to apply for asylum, the answer was a resounding “yes.”
Seeking Asylum
Requesting asylum necessitates scheduling another court date, typically years in the future. Asylum hearings remain closed to the public unless approved by the judge and the applicant, but RCI obtained permission to witness two such hearings.
In the first case, a couple from Honduras, who arrived in the U.S. in April 2022, sought asylum based on fears for their safety. The woman recounted her brother’s murder and described an encounter with a masked man wielding a gun while attempting to report the incident to police. They noted that suspicious vehicles began to follow them home.
The government attorney pressed them on why they couldn’t relocate within Honduras or seek refuge elsewhere, to which they had no answer. The husband mentioned his sister’s ties to drug gangs, which further fueled their fear of returning. Initially reluctant to migrate, the couple fled to the U.S. for the safety of their family.
After considering the case privately for about 90 minutes, LaRocca denied their asylum application. While he expressed belief in their testimony, he concluded that their situation did not meet the asylum criteria, which demand credible evidence of threats based on race, gender, religion, or social group membership.
However, this denial does not signal the end of their legal journey. LaRocca inquired whether they wished to appeal his decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Upon their affirmation, he informed them they must file within 30 days, triggering yet another court appearance.
The second hearing witnessed by RCI involved a 2022 application from a woman from El Salvador and her two sons, who had each filed separate asylum claims. For unclear reasons, her attorneys withdrew in February, and she informed Judge Marsteller that she had not secured a replacement since then. Although she had family in the U.S., including a sister who was granted asylum, the evidence supporting her claim of severe abuse from her father was limited to a letter from a former partner in El Salvador.
Marsteller accepted the letter but noted it couldn’t be entered into the record due to its Spanish language. A man in court, identified as her stepfather, mentioned that the woman and her sons were living with him in Louisiana, taking responsibility for their care.
After over an hour of proceedings, during which the children left the room when their mother recounted her abuse, Marsteller asked the government for its perspective. The government attorney informed the court that the notice the woman received pertained to a master calendar appearance, not an asylum hearing. Clearly taken aback, Marsteller was compelled to schedule another hearing for December 2026.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism
Our first edition was published 25 years ago from a basement in Atlanta. Today, The Epoch Times brings fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.
Our journalists have been threatened, arrested, and assaulted, but our commitment to independent journalism has never wavered. This year marks our 25th year of independent reporting, free from corporate and political influence.
That’s why you’re invited to a limited-time introductory offer — just $1 per week — so you can join millions already celebrating independent news.
