This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, procedures, and agency rules can differ by jurisdiction and may change over time. A qualified professional can address specific facts and current requirements. The author and publisher are not responsible for actions taken based on this information.
Key Facts
- Federal level: EOIR’s immigration courts adjudicate removability determinations and rulings on immigration-law applications for relief in removal proceedings under delegated authority from the Attorney General.
- Federal level: Removal proceedings begin when DHS files a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) with the immigration court, and the immigration judge issues a removability determination.
- Federal level: Decisions by immigration judges may be appealed to the BIA, which generally decides appeals through a paper review rather than courtroom proceedings.
- Federal level: EOIR caseload metrics show sustained pressure: in FY2024 EOIR received nearly 1.8 million new cases and the backlog reached 3.6 million at the end of FY2024.
- Federal level: In government reporting, “backlog” refers to cases pending in the EOIR immigration-court system from earlier periods that remain open into a new fiscal year.
- Federal level: GAO found EOIR does not systematically track whether respondents appeared or whether appearance was waived, and GAO reported a 34% in absentia rate for non-detained removal cases in FY2016–FY2023.
- Federal level: Staffing constraints show up in oversight: GAO reported an average of 742 days to hire new immigration judges from 2011 through August 2016, and CRS reported declines to 634 IJs by end of FY2025 and 557 by end of Q1 FY2026.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- EOIR and immigration courts handle federal removal proceedings
- How a removal case moves through the immigration court and BIA
- What the “immigration court backlog” measures
- Caseload numbers illustrate sustained backlog pressure
- Workforce constraints and operational drivers of backlog dynamics
- Data gaps can affect how hearing outcomes are evaluated
- Why congressional oversight and federal legal structure matter
- Sources
EOIR and immigration courts handle federal removal proceedings
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is the DOJ component that adjudicates immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws under delegated authority from the Attorney General. EOIR carries out immigration-court proceedings through the Immigration Courts and appellate review through the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
How a removal case moves through the immigration court and BIA
Removal proceedings begin when the Department of Homeland Security files a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) with the immigration court after DHS serves it. Immigration judges preside over immigration-court proceedings and make a determination on whether a person is removable, including issuing a final ruling on removability and any application for relief.
After the immigration judge issues a final ruling on removability and any application for relief, either the respondent or DHS may appeal the decision to the BIA.
The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. Generally, the BIA does not hold courtroom proceedings; it decides appeals by conducting a “paper review” of the case record, and BIA decisions are binding unless modified or overruled by the Attorney General or a federal court.
What the “immigration court backlog” measures
“Backlog” is a systems metric, not a single-file count of one particular type of dispute. GAO describes the case backlog as cases pending from previous years that remain open at the start of a new fiscal year.
A common source of confusion involves mixing the backlog concept with other caseload measures that use different time windows. The table below shows how several EOIR-related statistics are discussed in the government analyses relied on here.
| System term (as used in official reporting) | What it measures | Reporting period example supported by sources |
|---|---|---|
| Backlog / pending cases | Cases carried over that remain open at the start or end of a period | “Backlog reached 3.6 million at the end of FY2024” and “about 3.5 million pending cases as of July 2024” |
| New case receipts | New matters entered into the system for a period | “Nearly 1.8 million new cases” in FY2024 |
| Case completions | Cases finished by immigration judges during a period | “701,749 cases completed” in FY2024 |
| In absentia rate (non-detained) | Share of removal cases where a respondent fails to appear (as analyzed by GAO) | “34 percent” from FY2016 through FY2023 |
| Immigration judge (IJ) staffing | How many immigration judges are available to adjudicate | “Declined to 634” by end of FY2025 and “557 IJs on staff” by end of Q1 FY2026 |
Caseload numbers illustrate sustained backlog pressure
Government-reported statistics show that the number of pending cases can continue to rise even when immigration judges complete cases during the same fiscal year. CRS reports that in FY2024 EOIR received nearly 1.8 million new cases, and it also reports that the backlog continued to grow, reaching 3.6 million at the end of FY2024.
CRS further reports that, at the end of FY2024, EOIR had 3,558,995 pending cases, while GAO cites an EOIR-reported figure of about 3.5 million pending cases as of July 2024. These figures differ because they reflect different reporting cutoffs (July 2024 versus end of FY2024) and rounding.
Workforce constraints and operational drivers of backlog dynamics
Government analysis connects backlog pressure to workforce constraints and operational practices. GAO reported that EOIR’s case backlog more than doubled from FY2006 through FY2015, and GAO attributed the increase primarily to declining cases completed per year.
GAO also reported process capacity constraints affecting the pace of expanding adjudication resources. GAO reported that it took an average of 742 days to hire new immigration judges from 2011 through August 2016, and it reported that the use of continuances increased by 23% from FY2006 through FY2015.
Staffing levels tracked by CRS show changes across fiscal periods. CRS reports that by the end of FY2025 the IJ corps declined to 634, and that at the end of the first quarter of FY2026 EOIR had 557 IJs on staff.
CRS links changes in IJ staffing to congressional funding through the FY2025 reconciliation law (P.L. 119-21), which appropriated $3.33 billion to DOJ for purposes that include hiring immigration judges and support staff. CRS also reports that the law authorizes up to “not more than 800” immigration judges effective November 1, 2028.
For context on broader court-management themes, ABA coverage of judicial independence efforts can help place debates about adjudication capacity in a wider discussion about how courts maintain function and independence.
Data gaps can affect how hearing outcomes are evaluated
Backlog measurement intersects with outcome measurement when oversight tries to evaluate hearing attendance and procedural reliability. GAO reports that EOIR does not track or report data systematically on whether respondents appeared at hearings or whether appearance was waived because EOIR’s case management system lacks a function to systematically record such information.
GAO still analyzed in absentia outcomes. GAO reports that, according to EOIR data, from fiscal years 2016 through 2023 the total in absentia rate was 34% for removal cases of non-detained respondents.
Why congressional oversight and federal legal structure matter
EOIR’s administrative authority and how its leadership interprets immigration law operate within a federal framework. Federal statute places EOIR in DOJ and makes it subject to the direction and regulation of the Attorney General under 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g) (6 U.S.C. § 521).
Federal statute also provides that determinations and rulings by the Attorney General with respect to questions of law are controlling. In practice, those structural features help explain why backlog and staffing issues are discussed as federal capacity and governance questions rather than as state-operated court administration problems.
Sources
- EOIR learn about the immigration court
- EOIR about the office mission
- EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals paper review
- CRS FY2024 EOIR caseload and backlog data
- CRS immigration judge staffing issues
- GAO report on backlog reduction and operational challenges
- GAO report on hearing appearances and in absentia
- 6 U.S.C. § 521 legal status of EOIR
- 8 U.S.C. § 1103 controlling rulings
