Immigration courts are moving faster as deportation orders rise
The federal immigration-court backlog is shrinking as the system completes cases at a faster pace. But the same Justice Department data show a sharp rise in removal orders issued when people are not present for their hearings, raising questions about whether speed is leaving less time for notice, legal preparation and a full chance to present a claim.
The figures come from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, the Justice Department agency that oversees the nation’s immigration courts. The data were generated July 24, 2026, and cover the first three quarters of fiscal year 2026.
The backlog is down, but the periods are different
EOIR reported 3,469,569 pending cases through the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, compared with 3,722,776 pending cases at the end of fiscal year 2025. The agency recorded 660,343 total completions through the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, compared with 798,808 completions during all of fiscal year 2025.
Those comparisons must be read carefully. The fiscal year 2026 figures are partial-year totals, while the fiscal year 2025 figures cover the entire fiscal year. In EOIR’s published series, pending cases are matters still awaiting completion, initial receipts are new cases entering the system, and total completions include initial and subsequent case completions.
The lower pending-case total is a measurable change in the national caseload. It does not, by itself, show that court capacity improved, that every case received more time and attention, or why individual cases were completed.
Removal orders are rising alongside completions
EOIR reported 476,650 initial removal decisions through the third quarter of fiscal year 2026. Of those, 278,724 were issued in absentia, meaning the respondent did not appear for a scheduled hearing.
The asylum-specific data are more limited but especially notable. EOIR recorded 90,288 in-absentia removal orders involving asylum applicants through the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, already above the 50,254 recorded during all of fiscal year 2025.
EOIR says that series covers removal, deportation and exclusion cases in which an asylum application was filed. It does not include cases in which a person expressed fear of returning but did not actually file an asylum application. The 90,288 figure therefore is not a count of every asylum-related case or every person seeking protection.
How the faster schedule works
Associated Press reporting found that immigration courts have sharply increased the use of “mega” master hearings, in which dozens or hundreds of cases may be assigned to one judge. More than 1,300 such hearings were held in June, nearly three times the number reported for the previous June, according to data analyzed by Mobile Pathways, a nonprofit that tracks immigration-court activity.
AP also reported that preparation windows for complex proceedings have fallen from about six months to sometimes little more than a month. Mobile Pathways said the nationwide share of people missing scheduled hearings rose from about 20% in January 2025 to 40% in June 2026 as notice periods shortened.
AP reported that deportation orders rose alongside the missed-hearing rate, while courtrooms faced crowded dockets, long waits and proceedings that sometimes lasted only a few minutes. EOIR told AP that judges were adjusting schedules to resolve cases more quickly while handling them fairly and lawfully.
Why an in-absentia order matters
A person who misses an immigration-court hearing can receive a removal order without the underlying asylum or other immigration claim being fully heard. AP reported that an asylum claim is almost always considered abandoned after a deportation order, although the legal consequences can depend on the case and on available procedural remedies.
EOIR’s representation data, generated Nov. 18, 2025, show that 55% of completed cases were represented when in-absentia cases, terminations and dismissals were excluded. Among completed asylum cases, also excluding in-absentia cases, the representation rate was 77%.
Those figures provide older procedural context, not a current representation rate for fiscal year 2026 in-absentia cases. They also do not explain why an individual missed court or whether legally sufficient notice was provided.
The accountability question
The national statistics establish a measurable pattern: pending cases are falling while removal decisions, including in-absentia decisions, are occurring at a rapid pace. They do not establish that every missed hearing resulted from inadequate notice, lack of counsel or unlawful procedure. The AP report is accountability reporting, not an official finding of misconduct by EOIR or individual judges.
For people in proceedings, the practical risk is immediate: missing a scheduled hearing can lead to a removal order even when an asylum or other immigration claim has not been fully adjudicated. Shorter preparation windows and crowded calendars can also make it harder to find counsel, gather evidence and understand where to report.
The next important evidence will be the full-year fiscal year 2026 data, any revisions to EOIR’s statistics, updated representation and appeal figures, and possible court or congressional review of scheduling and notice practices. EOIR says its published statistics can change as staff update the case database. Until more evidence is available, the backlog reduction should be read as a change in throughput—not as proof that the system has resolved the safeguards question.
Sources
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.