The primary immigration courthouse in San Francisco has permanently shut its doors, leaving no asylum seekers awaiting decisions and no attorneys presenting cases in what was once a bustling legal venue.
When President Donald Trump began his current term, the facility employed 21 immigration judges. By its closure on May 1, only two remained after the others were terminated, chose retirement, or stepped down during the White House’s systematic removal of federal immigration judges.
This shutdown represents another example of the widespread disruption affecting immigration courts nationwide as the current administration seeks methods to process its enormous backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases while maximizing deportations.
Rejection rates for asylum requests have increased dramatically following the dismissal of nearly 100 judges deemed too lenient, with hundreds of military attorneys approved to take their places. Immigrants have faced arrest upon arriving at courthouses or government facilities for scheduled hearings.
While this national transformation continues, San Francisco becomes the first major metropolitan area to lose its primary immigration court, creating disorder and breakdown in an area historically welcoming to those seeking asylum. The two remaining judges will operate from a different federal facility in the city but will function as part of an immigration court located across the bay.
According to court personnel, this welcoming reputation may have contributed to its closure.
“It was a vibrant legal scene and so I think if you were looking to target a court you would have to look at what San Francisco stands for,” said Jeremiah Johnson, an immigration judge in the city until he was fired in November. He is now executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
The majority of the court’s 117,000 immigration cases have been relocated to a facility in Concord, approximately 30 miles away, which opened two years ago to assist with San Francisco’s case backlog. However, disruption has also affected that location. A courthouse that began 2025 with 11 judges now operates with five following multiple terminations. It already handled 60,000 cases before absorbing the San Francisco transfers.
San Francisco’s immigration court, which ranked third nationally in asylum case volume, was historically regarded as among the most favorable to asylum seekers. Between 2019 and 2024, nearly 75% of applicants obtained some form of protection, compared to 43% nationally, based on information gathered by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonprofit data research center based at Syracuse University.
This success rate stemmed partly from San Francisco’s extensive network of immigrant advocacy groups and pro bono or affordable legal services, resulting in one of the nation’s highest rates of legal representation for immigrants.
The Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Department of Justice division overseeing immigration courts, announced in March its intention to close the San Francisco courthouse in 2027 as a cost-reduction strategy and transfer cases to Concord. However, the closure occurred ahead of schedule after almost all San Francisco judges departed or were dismissed. The Executive Office offered no comprehensive explanation for the changes, stating only that it chose not to renew the court’s lease and does not discuss personnel issues.
Security measures at the Concord courthouse are extensive, possibly due to the new case influx. Armed security personnel question each visitor about weapons or explosives and observe as everyone powers down their mobile devices. Even coffee is prohibited inside. Only water is permitted, and only in clear containers.
Judah Lakin, an immigration attorney based in Oakland who also teaches at UC Berkeley School of Law, said the closure of the San Francisco court has made cases more time consuming since it’s harder for his clients, who often travel from hours away, to reach Concord on public transportation.
One recent 10-minute hearing in Concord took him more than two hours of travel, he said.
Beyond logistical challenges, Lakin explained that the turmoil in immigration courts under the Trump administration has created a tense courtroom environment. Mass terminations have resulted in last-minute hearing cancellations, cases have been rescheduled with minimal notice, and clients often remain in extended legal uncertainty, making them susceptible to deportation.
One of his clients, he said, was provisionally granted asylum by a judge, who was then fired before signing the decision. The case was transferred to a second judge, who was also fired. Now on their third judge, his client is still waiting.
“The ground is constantly shifting underneath your feet, whether it’s judges being fired and hearings getting canceled, whether it’s your clients getting arrested, whether it’s getting denials on things that used to be standard and routine,” Lakin said.
“I think that’s on purpose. That’s by design. It’s part of the strategy,” he added.
San Francisco’s immigration court was among the nation’s first to employ judges with non-prosecutorial backgrounds, with many having prior experience assisting immigrants at nonprofits or representing them in legal proceedings.
Witnessing the court’s closure is “heartbreaking,” said Dana Leigh Marks, a former San Francisco immigration judge who retired in 2021 after 35 years on the bench and who was among the first judges in the nation to be hired from private practice.
She views the Trump administration’s decision to close the largest immigration court in Northern California as part of an effort to undermine due process and eventually dismantle the path to asylum.
“It’s all a part of big ways and little ways that the Trump administration is trying to get non-citizens out of the country,” she said.
Johnson, the dismissed San Francisco judge, received his appointment during the first Trump administration. He believes he became a target because he approved asylum in 89% of his cases.
“You don’t fire judges if you disagree with the way they’re handling a case, that’s not how courts work. If you disagree, you appeal that decision,” he said.
Johnson, who is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, defended his judicial record, pointing out that over eight years, only about 10 of his cases were appealed by the Department of Homeland Security, and very few were sent back for further hearings by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Unlike federal courts, where there are strict rules of procedure and judges have lifetime tenure, the Justice Department runs immigration courts, and the attorney general can fire the judges with fewer constraints.
There were 754 immigration judges across the country at the start of Trump’s second term. Now, there are about 600, including some temporary judges, according to data collected by the judges’ union. Widespread courthouse arrests of immigrants have caused hundreds of people not to even show up for hearings, leading to deportation orders in absentia.
Nidaa Pervaiz came to the Concord court on a recent day to represent a client from Nepal. She prefers the new courthouse in some ways, since it’s closer to her home.
But, she said, she and her clients are already feeling the impact of the changes. Fewer judges leads to fewer hearings. That means more delays for her clients, whose paperwork can expire even before they can appear before a judge.
“Their whole lives are at stake, and they are coming to make a plea for their future” she said.
