Asylum denials reached 94% in June 2026, while immigration attorneys say the changing courtroom environment extends beyond asylum decisions to administrative closure, appearances and bond proceedings.

The climate inside the nation’s Immigration Courts has changed substantially.

New nationwide data show a sharp rise in asylum denials, while immigration practitioners report that respondents are also encountering a more restrictive environment in other aspects of removal proceedings — from requests for remote appearances and administrative closure to custody and bond determinations.

According to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), which analyzes federal immigration data, Immigration Judges denied 94.1% of asylum cases decided in June 2026, while the grant rate fell to approximately 5.5%. Only 771 individuals were granted asylum that month, fewer than one-quarter of the number granted asylum during comparable monthly periods three years earlier.

The number of decisions is also increasing. TRAC reported that Immigration Courts completed more than 14,000 asylum cases in June 2026.

The figures represent one of the clearest statistical indications yet of how dramatically asylum adjudication has shifted.

But attorneys practicing before the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, say the numbers tell only part of the story.

A Nationwide Shift, Not Just Particular Judges

Historically, outcomes in Immigration Court have varied substantially by judge and location. Those differences remain. Recent judge-by-judge data continue to show significant variations in asylum denial rates among individual Immigration Judges and courts.

Yet practitioners are increasingly describing a broader change in the way cases are being managed and adjudicated.

Jurelist spoke with Martin Druyan, Esq., principal attorney of Martin Druyan & Associates Attorneys, a nationwide immigration law firm, about what his firm has observed in Immigration Courts around the country.

Jurelist: How do you evaluate the current “climate for immigrants” in Immigration Courts?

Martin Druyan: “Overall, since 2025, we have seen a significant increase in denials by Immigration Judges. What is particularly noticeable from our practice is that this no longer appears to be limited to a particular judge or a particular Immigration Court, as we often saw in the past.

“We are seeing a more restrictive environment across different courts. And, in our experience, it affects not only final decisions in removal proceedings but also custody and bond requests.”

The statistical evidence is clearest with asylum. TRAC's August 2026 analysis found that asylum grant rates had been declining for several years but that the decline accelerated considerably, reaching the 5.5% grant rate recorded in June.

At the same time, the composition of the Immigration Judge corps has undergone substantial changes. TRAC reported that 279 Immigration Judges either left the bench or were removed during fiscal years 2025 and 2026, representing approximately 38% of the 735 judges employed at the end of FY2024.

Those institutional changes have occurred alongside new BIA precedent affecting how Immigration Judges handle continuances, administrative closure, credibility, asylum eligibility and other procedural and substantive questions.

Even Appearing in Court Has Become More Complicated

The changes attorneys describe begin before the merits of an immigration case are ever considered.

Remote hearings became routine during the COVID-19 pandemic. EOIR subsequently described internet-based hearings as an important component of its operations, noting that remote appearances reduce travel costs for respondents and attorneys and can help courts manage their dockets.

EOIR guidance provides that represented respondents and their attorneys generally may request remote appearances where appropriate and practicable. A request for a remote or in-person appearance generally must be submitted in writing at least 15 days before the hearing, unless the Immigration Judge waives that requirement.

For law firms representing clients nationally, the practical consequences can be substantial.

Jurelist: What is the main procedural hardship legal representatives are facing in removal proceedings today?

Druyan: “The hardship can start before we even reach the substance of the case.

“As everyone practicing immigration law knows, since the pandemic Immigration Courts have regularly conducted hearings through Webex. But during the last several months, we have encountered more situations where Immigration Judges require in-person appearances, including at Master Calendar hearings.

“Consider the practical consequences. Your client may live in California while the attorney primarily handling the case is based in New York. Requiring counsel to travel across the country for a preliminary hearing can create significant and, in some circumstances, unnecessary financial pressure on the client.

“Counsel can file a motion requesting a video appearance. But EOIR's rules generally require such a request to be made 15 days before the hearing. There are situations where a hearing notice itself arrives with very little time remaining before the hearing. That can create an immediate procedural problem before the parties have even reached the merits.”

The 15-day requirement is not absolute: EOIR guidance expressly recognizes that an Immigration Judge may waive it. Nevertheless, compressed scheduling can leave attorneys needing immediate judicial relief simply to determine how they will appear.

Administrative Closure Is Becoming Harder to Obtain

Another important shift involves respondents who may have a path to lawful immigration status outside removal proceedings.

Administrative closure historically allowed an Immigration Judge to temporarily remove a proceeding from the active calendar while another potentially dispositive immigration process moved forward.

That landscape has become considerably more restrictive.

In Matter of B-N-K-, decided in 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals emphasized the obligation of Immigration Judges and the Board to bring removal proceedings to a prompt and fair conclusion and stated that whether persuasive reasons exist to proceed to a merits determination is the primary consideration when evaluating administrative closure.

The BIA went further in February 2026 in Matter of Ibarra-Vega, 29 I&N Dec. 476 (BIA 2026).

There, the Board held that administrative closure over DHS's objection was inappropriate where a U visa was not immediately available and the record did not establish that one would become available in the reasonably near future. The Board also emphasized that administrative closure cannot operate as an indefinite substitute for relief expressly provided by immigration law.

For practitioners, the change has significant consequences.

Druyan: “In the past, when a respondent had another legitimate avenue for obtaining lawful status — adjustment based on a family relationship is one example — administrative closure could provide the person an opportunity to pursue that process without simultaneously litigating removal proceedings.

“Recently, we have personally encountered cases in which Immigration Judges declined to administratively close proceedings after DHS opposed closure.

“That changes the litigation strategy significantly. A respondent may have another immigration process pending, but at the same time must continue defending the removal case.”

The distinction is important. DHS opposition does not automatically dictate the outcome of every request for administrative closure. Immigration Judges remain responsible for applying controlling statutes, regulations and precedent to the facts before them.

But recent BIA decisions have substantially narrowed circumstances in which administrative closure may be appropriate, particularly where the alternative immigration benefit is speculative or will not become available in the reasonably near future.

“We Are Seeing Greater Weight Given to DHS Positions”

Druyan says his firm has observed another development that is more difficult to quantify statistically: what attorneys perceive as increased judicial receptiveness to DHS arguments.

Jurelist: Does that affect final decisions as well?

Druyan: “In our practice, we have seen cases where it appears that significantly greater weight is being given to the DHS position when the court reaches a final determination.

“Of course, the Immigration Judge is required to make an independent decision based upon the law and the evidentiary record. If we believe that the court made a factual or legal error, we reserve the respondent's right to appeal.

“But the availability of an appeal does not eliminate the hardship. The client has already gone through the proceeding, and an appeal means additional time, additional legal work and continued uncertainty.”

EOIR itself recognizes the right to seek Board of Immigration Appeals review when a party believes an Immigration Judge committed a factual or legal error. Generally, a Form EOIR-26 must be received by the BIA within 30 calendar days after an Immigration Judge renders an oral decision or mails a written decision.

Bond Proceedings Present a Separate Problem

The changing environment is not confined to the merits of removal cases.

For detained immigrants, the immediate question may be whether they can obtain release while their immigration cases remain pending.

Druyan says transfers between detention facilities can make that process considerably more complicated.

Jurelist: What about bond proceedings?

Druyan: “Unfortunately, bond proceedings have also been affected by the current climate.

“One practical problem is detention transfers. DHS may transfer a detainee from one facility to another, sometimes across state lines. Attorneys sometimes refer to repeated transfers as ‘bus therapy.’

“A transfer can create serious logistical and jurisdictional complications. Counsel may prepare and file a bond request based on the client's existing detention location and then discover that the client has been transferred elsewhere before the hearing.

“That can delay meaningful consideration of release and force counsel to determine immediately which Immigration Court has jurisdiction over the custody matter.”

EOIR's own policy illustrates the complexity. When a detained respondent is transferred while removal proceedings are pending, the Immigration Judge with original jurisdiction over the removal case generally retains jurisdiction until venue changes. But EOIR expressly identifies bond redetermination as an exception under which another Immigration Judge may exercise jurisdiction.

The rules governing the removal case and the separate custody proceeding therefore should not be treated as identical.

Flight Risk Can Reach Beyond Criminal History

Bond proceedings can also involve an extensive review of a respondent's immigration history.

Under longstanding BIA precedent, including Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006), Immigration Judges have broad discretion to consider relevant factors when evaluating danger and flight risk in custody redetermination proceedings.

Druyan says this can make weaknesses in a respondent's earlier immigration filings important even when those filings are separate from the immediate bond request.

Druyan: “A bond hearing does not necessarily occur in isolation from the rest of the respondent's immigration history.

“The court may look beyond the bond request and supporting documents and examine applications the respondent previously filed. If the court concludes that a prior application or claimed avenue of relief was weak, speculative or poorly supported, that may affect the court's assessment of whether the respondent has an incentive to appear for future proceedings.

“In practical terms, that can become part of a flight-risk analysis.

“That is why attorneys preparing a bond case need to understand not only the detention circumstances but the respondent's entire immigration record.”

A bond denial does not necessarily end the issue. An eligible respondent may appeal an Immigration Judge's bond decision separately to the Board of Immigration Appeals. EOIR currently requires a separate Form EOIR-26 for a bond appeal, and unlike most merits appeals, there is no filing fee for a bond appeal.

The Data and the Courtroom Experience Are Pointing in the Same Direction

No single statistic can measure the overall “climate” of the Immigration Court system.

Asylum denial data should not automatically be extrapolated to every type of relief, every bond proceeding or every Immigration Judge. Individual outcomes continue to depend on the applicable law, evidentiary record, procedural posture, jurisdiction and facts of each case.

But the nationwide asylum numbers are difficult to ignore.

A 94.1% asylum denial rate in June 2026 represents an extraordinary hurdle for applicants seeking protection before Immigration Judges. At the same time, recent BIA precedent has placed tighter boundaries around administrative closure and other procedural mechanisms that historically could provide respondents additional time to pursue immigration benefits outside active removal proceedings.

For immigration lawyers, the consequence is that procedural strategy is increasingly important alongside the merits.

A request to appear remotely, a motion for administrative closure, a request for continuance, the timing of an alternative immigration benefit, the respondent's prior filings and even a transfer between detention facilities may substantially affect how a case proceeds.

For respondents, the practical stakes are even higher.

Druyan: “The right to appeal remains extremely important. But an appeal is a remedy after a decision has already been entered. What attorneys and respondents are dealing with today is the increased difficulty of navigating the proceeding itself.

“The environment requires counsel to be prepared not only for the merits of the immigration claim but for procedural issues at virtually every stage of the case.”

As Immigration Courts continue working through millions of pending cases, the central question for the system will not simply be how quickly those cases can be completed.

It will also be whether speed, enforcement priorities and docket management can coexist with the fundamental requirement that each respondent receive an individualized and impartial adjudication.

Jurelist will continue monitoring nationwide Immigration Court decisions, EOIR policy changes and Board of Immigration Appeals precedent.

Sources: Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), U.S. Department of Justice; Board of Immigration Appeals precedent decisions; Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Syracuse University. Interview statements attributed to Martin Druyan reflect his professional observations and the experience of his law firm and should not be interpreted as EOIR statistical findings.