Immigration judge Clarence Wagner said he was fired without explanation in May, among more than 100 judges cut since President Donald Trump took office in 2025. The termination is part of a broader restructuring of immigration court operations that directly affects how practitioners litigate asylum and removal cases.
What changed
Judge Wagner told Civil Beat no reason was given for his May 21 firing. He received an email with “Termination” in the header, a three-sentence message informing him his 27-year career with the federal government had abruptly come to an end. Wagner had completed his semi-annual performance review weeks before, receiving praise and achieving the required performance level in categories including “legal analysis” and “professionalism.”
Beyond the individual terminations, the Trump administration has reshaped immigration court operations:
-
Hearing time reductions: Merit hearings—where applications for asylum or other forms of relief are heard—were sliced to two hours from what had been a half day, and previously a full day.
-
Increased pretermission requests: Pretermission is a process in which Department of Homeland Security officials ask judges to terminate immigrants’ cases before they receive a full asylum hearing. Every tool that authorities have to utilize, they’re utilizing.
-
Tighter oversight and probation: Extending new judges’ probation periods to four years instead of two, and increasing the number of performance reviews. Wagner said he was also subject to much greater oversight than before, with supervisors frequently asking him why cases hadn’t been completed.
Why it matters
Immigration arrests multiplied—in Hawaiʻi they quadrupled in 2025 compared to 2024—and authorities have turned to the courts to speed deportations and clear the backlog of cases, adding temporary judges and doubling requests for removal orders.
For practitioners, these operational changes compress the time and process available for substantive case development:
-
Compressed merit hearing windows force practitioners and clients to present complex asylum claims (including evidence of persecution, credibility narratives, and country conditions) in two hours instead of a half-day or full day. This fundamentally affects case strategy and evidence selection.
-
Pretermission tactics mean DHS will increasingly seek to terminate removal proceedings before your client receives a hearing on the merits. Practitioners must anticipate these motions and prepare responses under time pressure.
-
Reduced autonomy and increased performance scrutiny on judges correlates with faster case completions and lower grant rates, potentially affecting how judges evaluate evidence and credibility.
Wagner illustrated the tension: “Imagine trying to complete double the amount of cases in that master docket, and then going into a substantive case where someone’s claiming that they have a fear of being killed or persecuted if they return to their country. That’s what is happening across the country.”
Way forward
-
Prepare for compressed hearing windows: Structure your case presentation for a two-hour merit hearing. Prioritize documentary evidence (country conditions, medical records, police reports) and pre-prepare your client’s direct testimony to maximize time for cross-examination and argument.
-
Monitor pretermission filings: DHS is increasing requests to terminate removal cases before merits hearings. File preemptive opposition briefs and be prepared to argue that pretermission is inappropriate in cases where eligibility is clear or factual disputes exist.
-
Adjust court management expectations: Immigration judges are under heightened performance pressure. File motions to continue strategically but sparingly; complete discovery and case preparation before merits hearing dates to avoid signaling inefficiency.
-
Document court record: In every hearing, create a clear written record of the reasons why a case cannot be resolved faster (complexity of evidence, credibility disputes, country conditions research needed). This record may be relevant if judicial decisions are later challenged or if systemic fairness issues arise.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The underlying facts and policy details in this article are drawn from the published news source cited above. Immigration law and court procedures change frequently and without notice. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney to discuss your individual circumstances and verify current procedures against primary sources, including the EOIR website (https://www.justice.gov/eoir) and the Department of Homeland Security’s official guidance. Fola Editorial is a news and analysis platform, not a law firm.