Is the Justice Department quietly reshaping the immigration court system in San Francisco?
Recent developments have raised serious questions about whether political considerations are taking precedence over judicial expertise.
This week, another judge was abruptly removed from the bench, fueling concerns that those with strong pro-immigrant records or high asylum approval rates may be targeted—potentially undermining the independence of the courts.
A Pattern of Abrupt Dismissals
The Trump administration has continued its pattern of dismissing immigration judges in San Francisco, most recently removing Judge Shira Levine, who was appointed in October 2021.
According to NBC Bay Area, Levine received no explanation for her termination. Milli Atkinson, director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Bar Association of San Francisco, noted that while the decision was sudden, it was not entirely unexpected.
Since April, five other judges in San Francisco—including Chloe Dillon and Elisa Brasil, both known for granting a high number of asylum cases—have also been dismissed.
Dillon recounted learning of her firing through a brief three-sentence email on August 22, after returning from a marathon asylum hearing. She then spent 90 minutes packing up her office, returning federal property, and transferring her 6,000-case docket without knowing who would assume responsibility.
Allegations of Ideological Motivation
Many observers argue that these dismissals are driven by ideology rather than performance. Five of the six judges removed had asylum approval rates significantly above the national average and had prior experience representing immigrants in court. Former San Francisco judge Dana Leigh Marks told KQED that the firings seem “completely ideologically based,” targeting judges willing to evaluate cases impartially rather than defaulting to government positions.
Between fiscal years 2019 and 2024, Levine approved asylum in over 90% of her cases, while Dillon’s approval rate reached 96.5%—far above the national average, which has recently dropped from roughly 50% to below 36%, according to TRAC data. Experts note that while San Francisco asylum seekers are more likely to have legal representation, the Justice Department has focused scrutiny on these elevated approval rates.
Disproportionate Impact on Pro-Immigrant Judges
Judges with backgrounds in immigrant advocacy, private practice, or public interest law appear to be disproportionately affected, whereas those who advanced through prosecutorial roles within ICE have largely retained their positions. Before her appointment, Brasil worked extensively in pro bono immigration cases, and Levine spent more than five years at Centro Legal de la Raza and the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area. Dillon served as an attorney advisor in Los Angeles, and Jami Vigil represented immigrant families as court-appointed counsel for eight years.
In August, the Justice Department removed the requirement that temporary judges have prior immigration law experience, and shortly thereafter authorized 600 military lawyers to fill these positions. Critics warn that these changes could further weaken judicial expertise and independence, raising concerns about the fairness of decisions affecting thousands of asylum seekers.
Conclusion
The removal of Judge Levine marks the sixth San Francisco immigration judge dismissed under this pattern, highlighting a broader trend of targeting judges with pro-immigrant backgrounds or high asylum approval rates.
Legal experts and former judges caution that the combination of relaxed qualification standards and military appointments threatens both the independence and expertise of the immigration court system. As scrutiny intensifies, pressing questions remain about the role of ideology, justice, and the future of asylum adjudication in the United States.