Pending Cases in U.S. Immigration Courts, FY2008-FY2020

Pending Cases in U.S. Immigration Courts, FY2008-FY2020

link to page 1 link to page 1

November 19, 2020
Pending Cases in U.S. Immigration Courts, FY2008-FY2020
Immigration court proceedings are adjudicated by the
cases. According to EOIR, in FY2019, the median case
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an
completion time (i.e., length of time before cases were
agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ). They
resolved) for detained individuals was 46 days.
commence when the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) files a Form I-862 Notice to Appear (NTA) with the
Figure 2. Average Days Pending, All Cases, FY2008-
immigration court, thereby initiating removal proceedings
FY2020
against foreign nationals. Immigration Judges (IJs) then
determine whether these individuals are removable or
eligible for relief from removal (e.g., asylum).
Since FY2008, the number of I-862 cases pending in
immigration courts has increased about six-fold. In
FY2020, pending cases reached an all-time high of more
than 1.2 million (Figure 1).
In addition to those pending cases, 310,627 other cases
were administratively closed in FY2020. Administrative
closure is a docket management practice that allows IJs to
close cases temporarily, typically to prioritize cases that are
enforcement priorities. Administratively closed cases are
removed from the active court docket. This practice allows
individuals the opportunity to have their applications for

immigration relief resolved by other immigration agencies.
Source: Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at
Syracuse University.
Figure 1. I-862 Cases, FY2008-FY2020
Immigration Courts
There are 67 immigration courts nationwide, and some bear
a disproportionate share of pending cases. Nine courts each
have more than 50,000 pending cases; together, they are
responsible for nearly 50% of FY2020 pending cases.
Figure 3. Courts with 50,000 or More Pending Cases,
FY2020

Source: EOIR Workload and Adjudication Statistics
Wait Times for Pending Cases
The backlog of cases has extended wait times for case
completions. In FY2008, the average wait time for removal
cases was 438 days. By FY2020, average wait times
exceeded 800 days (Figure 2). Average wait refers to the
number of days individuals in proceedings have already
waited—not the total time they will actually wait to have

Source: Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at
their cases completed.
Syracuse University.
EOIR guidance explicitly designates detained individuals’
removal cases as priorities for completion. Detained cases,
therefore, have shorter completion times than non-detained
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 2
Pending Cases in U.S. Immigration Courts, FY2008-FY2020
Immigration Judges and EOIR Responses Central American Arrivals
to the Backlog
Since 2012, there has been a considerable increase in
For several years, some observers have attributed the
Central American migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico
backlog to a shortage of IJs—particularly after a DOJ hiring
border, including families and children seeking asylum.
freeze from FY2011 to FY2014, when the number of IJs
Migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
decreased from 273 to 249. More recently, EOIR has
account for a growing share of pending cases in
increased hiring to address the backlog and replace IJs who
immigration courts (Figure 4).
have departed. In FY2016, the agency employed 289 IJs.
Currently, it employs 520.
Figure 4. Pending Cases by Country of Origin, FY2020
Nevertheless, IJ caseloads remain considerably greater than
they were a decade ago. Moreover, caseloads are not evenly
distributed between IJs, leaving some with much larger
dockets than others. Caseloads tend to be lower in courts
that adjudicate detained individuals’ cases to ensure more
expeditious hearings. IJs also contend that they lack
adequate support staff to effectively manage their dockets.
EOIR and DOJ have also implemented policies to
maximize IJs’ and courts’ capacity and increase case
completions. However, some IJs, attorneys, and advocates
claim these strategies increase the backlog, threaten judicial
independence, or raise due process concerns.

 In 2018, a decision by then-Attorney General Sessions
Source: Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at
restricted IJs’ ability to administratively close cases.
Syracuse University.
EOIR subsequently proposed a federal regulation to end
administrative closure in 2020. DOJ claims that
Enforcement Priorities
administrative closure exacerbates the backlog of
Interior immigration enforcement expanded during the end
immigration cases. Proponents of administrative closure
of the George W. Bush Administration and early years of
argue that removing administrative closure would add
the Obama Administration, leading to more NTA issuances
even more cases to an already overburdened system.
and immigration court adjudications. The Obama
Administration subsequently prioritized removals of
 In 2018, DOJ issued new quotas to IJs that require them
immigrants with criminal records and encouraged judges to
to complete at least 700 cases annually. The quotas,
use administrative closure to clear out low-priority cases.
intended to reduce the backlog, have raised concerns
about judicial independence and due process.
The Trump Administration broadened enforcement
priorities, increasing the number of removal orders for
 In 2019, EOIR issued a “No Dark Courtrooms”
unauthorized foreign nationals without criminal histories,
memorandum requiring that all blocks of available
while also reducing IJs’ discretion to close cases
immigration court time be used each day in order to
administratively. These policies contributed to the increased
more effectively utilize its resources. The National
number of pending cases.
Association of Immigration Judges has argued that the
policy deters judges from managing their dockets and
Postponed Hearings
has expanded the backlog because of last-minute
Hearing cancellations due to external factors have also
location changes resulting from the new policy.
exacerbated the backlog. During the 2018 partial
government shutdown, an estimated 50,000-80,000
 EOIR has increased its use of video teleconference
immigration court hearings were cancelled and later
(VTC) systems to conduct more Merits Hearings (where
rescheduled. More recently, hearing postponements related
the respondent and DHS present arguments and
to the COVID-19 pandemic have contributed to the
evidence regarding applications for immigration relief).
backlog. On March 18, 2020, EOIR postponed hearings
In FY2020, EOIR conducted 282,232 VTC hearings
nationwide for cases involving non-detained individuals.
(about 19% of all hearings). Advocates and attorneys
The agency resumed these hearings in some courts in June,
have raised due process concerns with VTC, arguing
but others remain postponed through December 18, 2020.
that the technology impedes communication between
In addition, courts that have resumed hearings have closed
clients and lawyers and does not adequately convey
periodically for cleaning due to potential COVID-19
nonverbal cues that can alter an IJ’s assessment of an
exposures. According to an analysis by the Transactional
individual’s demeanor and credibility.
Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a research center
at Syracuse University, between March (when the courts
Additional Factors Contributing to the
partially shut down) and August 2020, pending cases
Backlog
increased 11% and wait times increased 6%.
In addition to IJ staffing needs, several factors external to
EOIR have been associated with increasing pending cases.
Holly Straut-Eppsteiner, Analyst in Immigration Policy
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Pending Cases in U.S. Immigration Courts, FY2008-FY2020

IF11690

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permissio n of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11690 · VERSION 1 · NEW