---

Immigration Judges Are Not Deportation Judges

Clickbait tactics to distort the job of immigration judges are disrespectful and irresponsible.

Jeremiah Johnson Feb 10 ? Guest post

READ IN APP

New immigration judges are going through a crash course that instructs them to only grant asylum in rare circumstances, an instruction that’s nowhere to be found in the law.

The two-week training plus one week of observation is not nearly sufficient for these attorneys – many of whom are military JAGs on a temporary detail – to learn the intricacies of immigration law before they have to decide an immigrant’s asylum claim.

The training is a clear indication that the Trump Administration’s vision of hiring legal professionals to serve as “deportation judges” is well underway.

When I first saw Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem post an advertisement seeking applicants for deportation judges, I thought it was a hoax.

A biased title for what should be an unbiased job.

I served as an immigration judge in San Francisco from 2017 until I was fired last November, one of more than 100 immigration judges who have been terminated nationwide since President Trump took office. I know well what it takes to serve as a judge in immigration cases, and I understand the vital role these judges play in providing due process to immigrants, including asylum seekers.

The advertisement had a link – join.justice.gov – and I was scared to click on it at first, thinking it was a scam. But then she posted another ad, and the Justice Department’s official account followed up with its own.

This was for real.

The website is hosted on the Justice Department’s web platform, and it seeks applicants to become a “deportation judge” and potentially earn over $200,000, plus a 25% base pay incentive for those willing to serve in select locations.

I was shocked. The current administration was trafficking in clickbait that was disrespectful and irresponsible.

First, a little background. The Immigration and Nationality Act defines an “immigration judge” as an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as an administrative judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review to hear removal proceedings. The law further provides that immigration judges shall preside over these proceedings and exercise their independent decision making authority. They are authorized to decide cases only based on the evidence presented by the parties in that case.

“Deportation judge” disrespects the professionals who hold the job.

With that backdrop, it’s clear the advertisement disrespects the demanding work of an immigration judge.

Due process requires a full and fair hearing, including in immigration proceedings. Respondents have a right to present evidence and witness testimony. Judges often hear heart-wrenching stories of violence and hardship, several times a day, every day. Not only do immigration judges order the removal of criminals and fraudsters, but they also must remove mothers of U.S. citizen children with special needs, spouses of U.S. citizens battling cancer, and sons and daughters of U.S. citizens struggling with Alzheimer’s.

From my experience, the majority of people an immigration judge encounters in their courtroom are not criminals. They are parents, spouses, and caregivers of U.S. citizens.

If the facts and the law require it, the judge’s job is to look them, and their loved ones, in the eye and order them removed from the United States.

That is an awesome responsibility, and should not be taken lightly.

By stripping the job of its complexity, the name change makes a mockery of our immigration system.

Soliciting applicants to fill the position of a “deportation judge” also suggests that DOJ is only seeking those who will not rule independently based on the facts and the law; i.e., those who believe that everyone seeking asylum should be deported.

“Deportation judge” has a fait accompli air about it. If I were facing federal murder charges, I certainly would be concerned if, instead of appearing before a district court judge, my case was being decided by an “execution judge.”

Perception is a key component to upholding the rule of law. A system that is perceived as just is more likely to encourage adherence to and acceptance of its rules. Likewise a system that is perceived as unjust is more likely to foster contempt for its authority.

Judges are a public face of a justice system, and the immigration court system is no different. Immigration judges wear the traditional black robe symbolizing their impartiality and solemn fidelity to the law. They sit upon a dais, elevated to symbolize authority. The flippant reference to “deportation judges” is antithetical to everything a judge stands for.

The role of an immigration judge is not merely to rubber stamp deportations. Our laws require a judge who will hear the case and apply the law based on the facts and the evidence.

That role is vital, considering the consequences of their decision.

When I had my final interview for my position as an immigration judge, on a cold December in Washington, D.C., almost everyone had left for the holidays. I had a morning interview at headquarters, and I recall being asked if I would be able to order someone removed – if I could issue a decision resulting in the deportation of a mother, a father; a son or daughter; a wife or husband.

That question captures the challenge of this job. We need immigration judges who understand the human consequences of their actions and who follow the law, above all else.

That is the essence of a just and humane immigration system, which must be more than a deportation system.

Jeremiah Johnson served as an immigration judge in San Francisco from 2017 to November 2025. He currently serves as the vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.