San Francisco's legendary immigration court is closing, the seat of most asylum applications.

The unexpected closure of San Francisco's main immigration court is affecting more than 100 pending cases. Proceedings are being delayed, leaving thousands of migrants in limbo and at risk of deportation, writes NPR.

The decision is seen as a symbolic blow to a region that has long been considered a center of immigration advocacy in the United States.

For decades, San Francisco's immigration court was the go-to place for migrants from the area between California's Central Valley and central Oregon to establish their right to remain in the country. Its broad jurisdiction made it one of the busiest in the United States, handling thousands of cases annually.

On the subject: Immigration courts in the United States are holding mass hearings, inviting over 100 migrants to a single hearing.

This court was considered one of the most frequent venues for granting asylum applications and allowing applicants to remain in the country. Its closure comes as the Donald Trump administration intensifies its efforts to restrict entry and stay in the United States for foreigners.

"This is part of the signal the Trump administration is sending: they're not in the mood for accepting asylum seekers. And one way they're showing that is by closing a court that's been fairly lenient in these cases," said Bill Hing, a professor of law and immigration studies at the University of San Francisco.

At the beginning of the year, the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees immigration courts, announced it would not renew the lease on the building at 100 Montgomery Street—San Francisco's main courthouse, with 21 courtrooms. The decision followed the resignations and dismissals of nearly all the judges who worked there. Formally, the closure was planned for the end of the year, but the process was expedited, and now approximately 100 cases are being transferred to the immigration court in Concord, about an hour's drive across the San Francisco Bay.

Another 17 or so cases will remain in San Francisco, in another, smaller building on Sansom Street, which has just two courtrooms.

The Department of Justice attributed the closure to cost savings. It did not respond to questions about the possible connection between the decision and the high asylum approval rate in this court.

Catherine Mattingly, a spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, stated that reducing backlogs remains a priority. To reduce congestion in the system, she said, any immigration judge can hear cases anywhere in the country. She added that as new judges are appointed, the agency will adjust the schedule to ensure cases are heard in a timely manner and within the law.

According to data for fiscal year 2025, the San Francisco Immigration Court denied asylum applications in approximately 30% of cases, half the national average. However, since 2004, more than half of the applications that were adjudicated have been approved, according to the research center Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Immigration lawyers fear the Trump administration's strategy is not to expand the number of judges, but to create conditions that make it extremely difficult to get a case heard.

"We're talking about raising the barriers to a level where access to a case becomes almost impossible," said immigration lawyer Ghassan Shamieh, whose cases are being heard in the now-closed court.

The History of San Francisco's Immigration Policy

Professor Bill Hing recalls practicing in San Francisco's immigration court after graduating from law school in the 1970s. He says the region was a place where the fate of many immigrants was decided.

The Chinese Exclusion Act, passed in 1882, was in effect here for a long time. It effectively limited or prohibited Chinese immigration to the United States and became one of the most famous examples of racially discriminatory immigration policy in the country's history.

It was this law, which restricted the entry of Chinese migrants, that laid the foundation for many subsequent court cases in San Francisco challenging deportations. Later, downtown law firms provided pro bono assistance to asylum seekers and other migrants for years, particularly during new waves of migration, including the influx of Central Americans in the 1980s.

"Later, the development of non-profit organizations in the city added to this. All of this created a very close system of interaction," Hing noted.

As a result, a strong legal school emerged in the region, with several landmark immigration cases reaching the US Supreme Court. These included cases protecting labor leader Harry Bridges from deportation, advocating for the admission of openly gay people to the US, and rulings that laid the foundation for protecting World War II veterans from deportation from the Philippines.

Later, cases emerged that shaped modern asylum standards.

Over time, San Francisco's immigration court has developed a reputation for being more accommodating to applicants than the national average. Advocates attribute this to the region's high level of legal representation: according to the American Immigration Council, approximately 69% of migrants appearing in court have attorneys. Concord ranks third in this regard.

In response to questions about the impact of the closure on asylum statistics, EOIR spokesperson Katherine Mattingly stated that the decision was due to the expiration of the court's lease and that relocating the courthouse would reduce costs. However, she did not comment on concerns about how this would impact migrants' access to lawyers and the outcome of their cases.

San Francisco and Concord are bearing the brunt of the damage.

The court in Concord, which is now expected to take on the bulk of the caseload, has never been fully staffed with judges.

At the beginning of the year, the US immigration court system had about a quarter fewer judges than it did at the beginning of 2025, with a backlog of 3,5 million cases pending.

The layoffs hit the San Francisco Bay Area particularly hard. In San Francisco itself, the number of judges was reduced from 21 to two, working in a different building. In Concord, instead of the planned 21 judges, there are now only four (not counting the chief).

The additional burden on Concord comes as judge dismissals continue there, even as recently as May. The Trump administration has fired more than 130 immigration judges nationwide, with many more resigning or retiring.

Although the Justice Department claims record hiring (more than 80 new judges in a year, including a May hiring), only one has been assigned to Concord.

Cases in Concord are currently being assigned to so-called on-call judges, with no clear indication as to who will hear a particular case—a new judge, a not-yet-appointed specialist, or a judge from another region connecting via video link.

The lack of a designated judge means hearings are constantly being postponed, and lawyers say it makes trial preparation difficult.

In response to questions about staffing, Catherine Mattingly stated that any immigration judge can be assigned to hear cases in any court in the country as needed. She stated that cases will be heard either in Concord or remotely, and that reducing backlogs remains the agency's priority.

Immigration attorney Jane Lee, who serves as a duty lawyer and provides emergency assistance to those attending hearings without representation, calls the situation critical.

"This court has to serve a huge territory; there are thousands of cases, but there simply aren't enough judges," she noted.

Cases currently pending in San Francisco are expected to be heard in Concord beginning in December.

Delays leave migrants in limbo for years

Attorney Ghassan Chamie, who practices on both sides of the Gulf, says he has hundreds of cases still pending in the Montgomery Street courthouse. There are currently no judges there and no hearings scheduled until the court closes in December.

"This uncertainty is extremely frightening. Judges have already scheduled hearings as far back as 2027 and 2028," he stated.

A migrant named Elin, who arrived in the United States from Nicaragua in 2020 and is seeking asylum, has found himself in a situation of years of delays.

He's been awaiting a final hearing in San Francisco for several years. The case has been postponed several times, including after the judge scheduled to hear it resigned.

The hearing is now scheduled for 2029, in San Francisco, in the now-closed Montgomery Street building, before a judge who no longer works there. In reality, his case will likely be moved to Concord—more than an hour's drive away, despite him not having a car.

"There's no date as such, and it's all very difficult psychologically—sometimes I'm afraid to even go outside," he admitted in an interview with NPR.

Elin gave only his first name out of fear of repercussions for his case: "My brother's asylum has already been approved, he received a green card. But I'm still in this limbo."

Elin has been living in the United States since the end of 2020. He has a work permit, pays taxes, and believes he has grounds to remain in the country.

“On the one hand, I want my case to finally be considered, but on the other hand, I think it might be better to wait until the presidential change in 2029,” he shared his thoughts.

The unstable schedule is also affecting lawyers. Attorney Jordan Weiner, acting director of La Raza Centro Legal, says the organization has stopped taking on new cases due to the sheer unpredictability of their schedules.

"Even if things are quiet now, that doesn't mean we can take on new clients. Tomorrow, we might receive notifications that all our cases will be heard next week. Therefore, we simply can't expand right now until we understand how the system will work," she concluded.

Resources are shifting to Concord

In Concord itself, a new infrastructure for supporting migrants is already being built.

When the immigration court opened there in 2024, human rights advocates immediately identified problems: the building was poorly connected to public transportation, the courtrooms were located on the upper floors of an office building, and navigation and waiting areas were virtually nonexistent.

Non-profit organizations and volunteers quickly began building a support system: information packets with lawyer contacts were created, volunteers greet people in the lobby, and a fund was created to cover asylum application fees. Currently, a coalition of approximately 100 volunteers in bright blue vests is helping navigate the process and coordinate work with lawyers.

San Francisco legal organizations see the development of this system as an opportunity to rebuild a unified model of legal aid.

Millie Atkinson, director of the San Francisco Bar Association's Immigrant Legal Defense Program, leads a team of 100 volunteer duty lawyers who assist people in court if they don't have a lawyer.

Her main concern is that many migrants, especially those without lawyers, may simply not know that their case has been transferred to another city. She notes that this problem already arose during the immigration court reforms planned for 2024.

Back then, if someone was confused about the date or location of a hearing, the courts sometimes showed leniency: the missed hearing could be explained by the person simply not having received a new notice. Now, she fears that such flexibility may disappear as pressure increases to expedite deportation proceedings for those who miss hearings.

You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants, and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York

EOIR spokesperson Catherine Mattingly said all participants in the proceedings will be sent new notices of the location and time of the hearings after the cases are rescheduled.

Legal organizations in the two cities are beginning to pool their resources. Attorneys from San Francisco are already training to work in Concord while simultaneously continuing to handle cases in the remaining two courtrooms of the smaller courthouse.

At the same time, the closure of a large building is perceived by many lawyers as a painful loss. For attorney Millie Atkinson, this space is associated with decades of work.

"Like Ellis Island, like Angel Island, this place holds a history of tragic injustice. But here, people's lives were transformed; for the first time, they felt safe, that they had a future and hope," she concluded.

Read also on ForumDaily:

The House of Representatives has agreed to allocate $70 billion to combat migrants.

USCIS opens asylum office in San Antonio

A court has ordered the Trump administration to resume hearing asylum and immigration cases.

Do you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram  and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis.