The Department of Justice fired at least five San Francisco immigration court judges on Friday in the largest cut to immigration judges in the city so far this year.
Today’s firings bring the total number of San Francisco immigration judges sacked by the Trump administration to 12 this year.
Judges Shuting Chen, Louis A. Gordon, Jeremiah Johnson, Amber George and Patrick Savage were fired, according to multiple sources close to the San Francisco immigration court. As of Friday afternoon, all five names had been removed from the court’s website.
The dismissals follow the justice department’s firing of seven other San Francisco immigration judges this year, including the assistant chief Judge Loi McCleskey in early September, Judge Shira M. Levine a few days earlier, and Judge Chloe S. Dillon in late August.
Only nine immigration judges remain in San Francisco, according to the court’s website.
The Trump administration is seeking to make its mark on the asylum system. Secretary Kristi Noem of the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday tweeted an ad asking candidates to apply to be a “deportation judge,” promising a salary between $159,901 and $207,500.
The ad also touted a sign-up bonus equal to 25 percent of that starting salary if hired in one of several cities, including San Francisco.
All five judges fired from San Francisco on Friday had relatively high rates of granting asylum cases, although San Francisco immigration judges, as a whole, have far higher rates of granting asylum compared to others nationwide.
According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, Gordon had the highest rate of all five judges, accepting asylum claims 96 percent of the time between the years of 2019 and 2024.
Close behind him, George granted asylum in roughly 94 percent of cases, and Savage granted asylum in roughly 93 percent of cases. Chen granted asylum in about 90 percent of her cases. Johnson had a slightly lower rate of granting asylum claims, 88.6 percent.
Nationwide, immigration judges granted asylum an average of 41 percent of the time.
The Trump administration has fired more than 80 immigration judges so far this year, even amid a 3.4 million backlog of cases. In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has assigned 600 military judges to temporarily fill those roles nationwide.
Multiple attorneys said they worry the firings will disrupt cases for clients with upcoming hearings and further strain an already backlogged system.
Diana Mariscal, a staff immigration attorney at La Raza Centro Legal said that these firings will increase uncertainty for asylum seekers. “Many have been waiting several years already for their day in court and now face having to wait even longer.”
In one particular case, noted by Mariscal, testimony had already been taken and attorneys expected a favorable outcome. But now, the outcome is uncertain.
“With a new judge, we don’t know how much our client will have to testify again and relive their traumatic past.”
The approval rates of 88% or above are out of whack compared to other jurisdictions, including the Immigration Court in Atlanta. Even accounting for differences in asylum law among the Circuit Courts of Appeal, the disparity between the courts is pretty striking.
Without coming to any judgement regarding whether any of these terminations was merited, the status quo does appear to have encouraged forum shopping by noncitizens in deportation proceedings. Does a system where one’s chances of gaining protection from removal depends so much on the location of the Immigration Court provide adequate due process?
People have money and resources for lawyers here. That is what makes the difference in a court case. Obviously.
Or do you think there are no other possible correlations that you didn’t think of yet?
This is unfortunate but was predictable. Immigration judges are not “judges” in the sense that we usually think of them, a neutral arbiter who is outside the political process. They are DOJ personnel (a part of the Executive Branch not the Judicial Branch) and act as both judge and jury on immigration matters. With near unfettered discretion.
The fact that – pre-Trump – immigration judges’ grant rates on asylum requests ranged from 2% to 98% shows that their decisions are almost entirely based on arbitrary, capricious bias. One can consider that to be good or bad depending on whether that bias matches your own, but it is not how important decisions like this should be made. I’ve represented a number of asylum clients (pro bono) and have never lost, even in cases where my clients’ supporting facts were extremely weak. Of course, I won’t complain about that. And, for the most part, immigration judges just kick the can down the road, delaying any decision at all for years. Immigrants and their lawyers know that just uttering the word “asylum” can buy you a decade or more.
This is not a good system. Congress should enact real reform that allows and requires independent judges to make decisions in a prompt manner. That’s never going to happen, unfortunately, so for the next three years we’re going to have immigration judges that exercise their bias toward denials. Unfair to be sure. But exercising bias in the other direction was also bound to sow mistrust and played a not insignificant role in the 2024 election results. It’s all very sad for the people whose lives are affected.
Question: If, as you state, the problem is that “decisions are almost entirely based on arbitrary, capricious bias”: How many judges from the other bookend of bias, the 2% grant rate neighborhood, were being let go recently?
Having the numbers is helpful, thank you. These judges do appear to be outliers relative to a national average of 41%. My questions:
– How has that figure, 41%, changed over time? What was it in 2024 v., say, since March 2025?
– How do numbers vary regionally or by court district, i.e. how representative is the 41% average relative to other districts? (Maybe the nature of the cases is different between districts, so that a wide variation is rational?)
– What do we know about the other firings around the country, i.e. are they just picking judges from the top of a list based on “asylum granted” percentage?
There are more pro bono lawyers per/capita in SF compared to other jurisdictions that are donating their time. If you go into a court battle without a lawyer, that’s obviously going to skew the result – somehow your analysis didn’t consider this.
92% approval rates. Is it really so bad for Punjabi’s in India ? World’s largest Democracy ? Yes, Democracy.
The next POTUS should just automatically fire every single Trump appointed judge.
If he thinks he’s going to be the last POTUS, show him how wrong he truly is.
The treatment of people by this administration is abominable. And by that I’m talking about everyone at every level.
I was there in Judge George’s courtroom. She was hustled out by staff in the middle of a hearing and never came back.
“George granted asylum in roughly 94 percent of cases”.
Excellent news that she’s gone. I hope they cut her off mid-sentence too. These so-called “judges” are nothing more than immigration activists in robes.
Get rid of all of them and start again.
Wow!
American nazis at work. trying hard to make America white again..I wish the native Americans would set up their own immigration services and send them back to old Europe.