The Trump administration has reshaped a little-known corner of the Justice Department to set immigration policy and escalate mass detentions and deportations. The Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative court within the Executive Office for Immigration Review at DOJ, has published a body of immigration case law that significantly narrows the due process and relief from deportation available for immigrants, according to an NPR analysis of its decisions.

The White House accomplished this by shrinking the board from 28 appellate judge slots to 15, filling the remaining positions with President Trump's appointees. Last year, their decisions backed Department of Homeland Security lawyers in 97% of publicly posted cases — at least 30 percentage points higher than the average from the last 16 years.

The board has made it harder for immigration courts to offer immigrants bond in lieu of detention. It has made it easier to deport migrants to countries other than their own. And a new proposed regulation would make it harder for people to appeal their immigration decisions at all. The board pumped out 70 published decisions in 2025, a record number of precedent-setting cases.

What the Left Is Saying

Immigration attorneys and former board judges say the changes have gutted crucial oversight of immigration courts, leaving immigrants with fewer avenues to challenge deportation orders.

Andrea Sáenz, a former board judge appointed by former President Joe Biden and terminated by Trump last year, said the board's impact extends far beyond its small size. "The board has an impact on immigration law that is much, much bigger than the number of people that are on it," Sáenz said. "That's because they have this ability to set immigration precedents and rules for the whole country."

Victoria Neilson, supervising attorney at the National Immigration Project at the National Lawyers Guild, said recent decisions "have formed the backbone for how immigration judges" are allowed to consider asylum and bond cases. "They've issued several decisions that make it impossible or nearly impossible for those who can seek bond from the immigration judge to even get bond," she said.

Former BIA judge Katharine Clark, who spent over 15 years at DOJ and was terminated last year, said the reduction in force eliminates a crucial check on immigration judges. "We lose an absolutely crucial method of catching errors by immigration judges who are absolutely flooded with cases," Clark said. "In this situation, mistakes are essentially inevitable."

Homero Lopez, another former BIA judge appointed by Biden and let go last year, said the administration prioritized policy over having enough judges. "The administration came in this time knowing we don't necessarily need to have immigration judges in place, we need to have the policy in place," Lopez said. "And the policy gets made by the board, not by the immigration judges."

Five immigrant rights organizations successfully sued to block most of a proposed rule that would have shortened the appeal window from 30 days to 10. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss called the rule unlawful, noting the government essentially argued immigrants would "quickly lose virtually every appeal" they bring.

What the Right Is Saying

The Justice Department defends the changes as restoring integrity to the immigration adjudication system and enforcing the law as written.

A DOJ spokesperson, providing a statement on behalf of the agency, said EOIR is "restoring integrity to the immigration adjudication system, and Board of Immigration Appeals decisions reflect straightforward interpretations of clear statutory language."

"President Trump and the Department of Justice will continue to enforce the law as it is written to defend and protect the safety and security of the American people," the spokesperson said. "Under the leadership of Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Garry Malphrus, the BIA is now recommitted to following the law and fulfilling its core adjudicatory mission."

In a federal register notice announcing the reduction in force, the agency said a larger board wasn't more productive at reviewing more cases. "Although many factors may have contributed to this outcome — including organizational and administrative challenges — the data demonstrate that increasing the Board's size has not brought about the hoped-for increases in productivity envisioned by prior expansions," the notice states.

The administration has pointed to a backlog of over 200,000 cases at the BIA as justification for streamlining procedures.

What the Numbers Show

The board's composition changed dramatically within Trump's first month in office. The number of appellate judge slots was cut from 28 to 15, with the first dismissals targeting judges appointed by Biden. Those who had been there longer were also part of the reduction in force or resigned soon after.

The government win rate before the board has soared. In 2025, DHS won 97% of publicly posted cases — a new high. The only exception in recent years was 2015, when immigrants won more cases than the administration. NPR's analysis shows this represents at least a 30-percentage-point increase over the average from the prior 16 years.

The number of published precedent decisions reached 70 in 2025, nearly matching all publicly posted decisions under Biden and the highest yearly total since NPR began tracking in 2009.

The workforce reductions mirror a broader pattern across the federal immigration courts. At least 100 immigration judges were fired in the last year, with more resigning or retiring. There are now a quarter fewer immigration judges than there were at the start of 2025.

In one key case, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the board ruled that immigration judges must deny bond and detain noncitizens who entered the country illegally.EOIR leaders instructed immigration judges in January to defer to this precedent and deny bond.

The proposed rule that was blocked would have shortened the appeal window from 30 days to 10 and made it easier to dismiss appeals before hearing. The backlog the administration sought to address topped 200,000 cases as of late last year.

The Bottom Line

The Board of Immigration Appeals has become a central tool for shaping immigration policy outside of Congress, using its authority to set precedent that binds all immigration judges nationwide. With Trump's appointees now comprising the entire board, decisions have overwhelmingly favored DHS positions, fundamentally altering the landscape for immigrants seeking due process.

Federal appellate courts are now weighing in on some of these decisions, particularly regarding mandatory detention. The legal battles over the board's authority and the proposed appeal rules are likely to continue, potentially reaching higher courts.

What remains clear is that a small panel of 15 judges, operating within the executive branch rather than the independent judiciary, is now setting rules that affect millions of people in immigration proceedings across the country. The consequences of these decisions — whether viewed as restoring order or undermining due process — will shape immigration enforcement for years to come.