Immigration courts are issuing more in-absentia removal orders
Immigration courts are processing cases faster as the federal system works down its backlog, but the speedup is occurring alongside a sharp rise in missed hearings and removal orders issued when respondents are absent.
The pattern matters because a missed hearing can produce an in-absentia removal order even when an asylum claim or another defense has not been decided on its merits. Recent reporting and federal statistics show both the scale of the change and the limits of what the available data can explain.
Missed hearings have risen as schedules tighten
In a July 27, 2026, investigation, the Associated Press reported that Mobile Pathways, a nonprofit that tracks immigration-court data, estimated that about 20% of people missed scheduled hearings nationwide in January 2025. By June 2026, Mobile Pathways estimated that the rate had doubled to 40%.
Mobile Pathways also estimated that monthly removal orders increased from nearly 33,000 in January 2025 to about 79,000 in June 2026. Those figures are outside estimates, not official Executive Office for Immigration Review statistics.
AP reported that courts held more than 1,300 so-called mega master hearings in June, nearly three times the number in June 2025, according to Mobile Pathways’ analysis. These hearing blocks can put dozens or hundreds of cases on one judge’s calendar. AP also reported that preparation time for some complex proceedings had fallen from about six months to a little more than a month.
Those conditions may make attendance and preparation harder, but the available data do not establish why each person missed court. Travel problems, medical emergencies, confusion about where to report, notice issues and other case-specific circumstances can all matter.
What the latest EOIR data show
EOIR’s adjudication statistics were generated July 24, 2026. The agency recorded 281,867 in-absentia removal orders in fiscal year 2026 through the third quarter. The category covers removal, deportation and exclusion cases, and the figure is not a full-year total. EOIR recorded 311,130 such orders for all of fiscal year 2025.
EOIR separately reported 90,288 in-absentia removal orders in fiscal year 2026 through the third quarter in cases with an asylum application. The agency says that measure does not include cases in which a respondent expressed fear of return but did not actually file an asylum application. The comparable full-year 2025 figure was 50,254.
A separate EOIR decision-outcomes report recorded 476,650 initial removal decisions through the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, including 278,724 removal decisions made in absentia. That is a decision-outcome measure for the reporting period, not a count of all people who missed hearings.
The pending caseload also declined. EOIR reported 3,469,569 pending cases through the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, compared with 3,722,776 at the end of fiscal year 2025. The agency recorded 660,343 total completions through the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, after 798,808 completions in fiscal year 2025.
A smaller backlog shows that more cases are being completed. It does not, by itself, show whether every case received the same preparation time, hearing time or opportunity to present evidence. It also does not establish that faster processing was unlawful or that every case was fully adjudicated on the merits.
Why asylum cases are especially vulnerable
AP reported that an in-absentia removal order generally causes an asylum claim to be treated as abandoned. Unless the order is later reopened, the claim may never receive a merits decision.
An in-absentia order is not the same as a finding that the underlying asylum claim lacks merit. It means the court entered a removal order because the respondent was not present when required, subject to the rules governing notice and motions to reopen.
What options remain after an order
EOIR says that, in removal proceedings, the Board of Immigration Appeals does not have jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal of an in-absentia order. The usual route is a motion to reopen filed with the immigration court. EOIR notes that standards differ for deportation and exclusion proceedings.
For removal proceedings, EOIR identifies three possible grounds: exceptional circumstances that caused the absence, lack of proper notice, or federal or state custody through no fault of the respondent. A motion based on exceptional circumstances generally must be filed within 180 days after the order. Motions based on improper notice or qualifying custody may be filed at any time.
EOIR says a person may file only one motion to reopen to rescind an in-absentia order. In removal proceedings, removal is automatically stayed while the immigration judge considers the motion.
Anyone affected should preserve hearing notices, address records, travel or medical documentation and copies of court filings, then seek qualified immigration-law assistance promptly. The next issues to watch include updated EOIR statistics, court scheduling practices and litigation over notice, hearing access and due process.
Sources
- Associated Press, “Breakneck pace in immigration courts is driving up deportation orders”
- EOIR, “In Absentia Removal Orders”
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.