(José Niño, Headline USA) When Congress designed the rules for immigration proceedings, it never anticipated a scenario where hundreds of thousands of cases would be closed or dismissed, and even more would go unheard because respondents simply failed to appear.
However, that’s exactly what happened during the Biden administration, when over 500,000 noncitizens did not show up for their scheduled removal hearings, while the Department of Homeland Security dismissed or closed an additional 700,000 pending immigration cases, according to the findings of Andrew R. Arthur, the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
These missed appearances signal a broader issue: the Biden administration’s actions have contributed to significant dysfunction in the immigration system.
Removal proceedings in the United States are governed by Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The process begins when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) files a Notice to Appear (NTA) with an immigration court.
The respondent — typically a noncitizen alleged to be removable — attends a master calendar hearing, where an immigration judge explains their rights and hears their response to the allegations. Most respondents admit the charges and proceed to seek relief, such as asylum or lawful permanent residency.
The judge then determines eligibility for relief during a separate merits hearing. If the respondent is not removable, the case is dismissed. If the respondent is removable and does not obtain relief, the judge issues a removal order.
Throughout these proceedings, cases may be continued for reasons such as securing legal counsel or gathering evidence. However, if a respondent receives notice but fails to appear, and the evidence supports removal, the INA requires the judge to issue a removal order in absentia.
According to a December 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, historically about 34 percent of noncitizens have failed to appear for their hearings, resulting in removal orders issued without their presence.
Data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) indicate that from fiscal years 2015 to 2021, fewer than 350,000 in absentia removal orders were issued.
Between 2022 and December 2024, this number rose sharply to over 507,000 — an increase of nearly 45 percent in less than half the time. In 2024 alone, nearly 223,000 individuals failed to appear for their hearings and were ordered removed in absentia.
Several factors have contributed to the rise in no-shows and in absentia removal orders. The number of immigration judges has increased significantly, from just over 250 in 2015 to 735 in 2024, allowing more cases to be heard.
While the number of immigration judges grew by 66 percent between FY 2019 and FY 2024 — from just over 440 to a significantly larger bench — the number of removal orders issued to aliens who failed to appear surged by more than 144% during the same period, rising from under 91,500 in FY 2019 to nearly 223,000 in FY 2024.
However, the increase in judges does not fully explain the surge in missed hearings. Policy changes in recent years, particularly regarding detention and release practices, have played a substantial role.
The surge in immigration court no-shows stems largely from the Biden administration’s refusal to detain most illegal entrants, not from court operations.
Under section 235(b) of the INA, Border Patrol agents and Customs officers can place inadmissible aliens into expedited removal, bypassing immigration judges unless the alien claims a fear of return and is found to have a “credible fear.” Otherwise, they can be swiftly deported.
If credible fear is established, or if expedited removal isn’t applied, the alien is placed into standard removal proceedings under section 240 of the INA. By law, DHS must detain all such aliens from the moment of encounter until they are either granted relief or deported.
Instead, the Biden administration has largely sidelined expedited removals, treating nearly all illegal entrants as “asylum seekers” and releasing most of them — an estimated 88.5 percent by Arthur’s estimates — into the U.S. with a notice to appear in court.
Historically, released individuals who are unlikely to obtain relief are less likely to attend their hearings, which is why Congress mandated that DHS detain individuals encountered by CBP at the border and ports of entry.
By overwhelming immigration courts with largely unscreened migrants, the Biden administration effectively guaranteed a surge in absentia removal orders. Still, the more than 507,000 no-shows is even more troubling than it seems.
That’s because, while placing millions of illegal immigrants into removal proceedings, the administration also pushed courts to terminate, dismiss, or close over 700,000 other cases —what the House Judiciary Committee has described as a “quiet amnesty.”
Few, if any, of those aliens were eligible for relief. Had they been, they likely wouldn’t have allowed their cases to be terminated, dismissed, or closed.
These trends highlight ongoing challenges in enforcing immigration laws and maintaining the integrity of the court system. How policymakers address these issues will likely shape the effectiveness and credibility of U.S. immigration adjudication in the years ahead.
José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino
