Immigration Courts Accelerate Somali Asylum Hearings

U.S. immigration courts have dramatically accelerated the processing of asylum applications from Somali migrants, rescheduling hundreds of hearings that were initially set for years in the future, including some previously unscheduled cases. This rapid acceleration, particularly affecting individuals who arrived in the U.S. between 2018 and 2024, has sparked significant concern among legal professionals. They view this as a potentially coordinated strategy by immigration authorities to streamline the rejection of these asylum claims, thereby facilitating quicker deportations and bypassing due process. This development is unfolding against a backdrop of intensified scrutiny and restrictive policies targeting Somali immigrants, raising questions about fairness and equitable treatment within the legal system.

Immigration Courts Fast-Track Somali Asylum Hearings Amidst Due Process Concerns

In an unexpected and rapid turn of events, numerous asylum applications from Somali migrants across at least three states—Minnesota, Illinois, and Nebraska—have seen their court dates significantly moved up. Beginning on a recent Friday night, lawyers reported receiving notifications that hearings previously scheduled as far out as 2028, or those still awaiting initial scheduling, were abruptly reassigned to dates within the current month or the next. While over 100 cases have been confirmed as affected, legal experts suggest the actual number could be considerably higher.

Legal representatives, speaking anonymously due to fears of client repercussions, suspect a concerted effort by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Department of Homeland Security. Their concern is that this initiative aims to deny Somali asylum applications without adequate court proceedings, which could pave the way for expedited deportations and undermine established due process. The timing of these changes is particularly alarming given the Trump administration's historical stance and recent actions concerning Somali immigrants, including the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis, set to expire on March 17.

Currently, there are approximately 3,254 pending asylum cases from Somali immigrants, with nearly half originating from Minnesota, a state with the largest Somali population in the U.S. Lawyers note that affected clients uniformly identify as Somali citizens who entered the U.S. between 2018 and 2024. The practice of assigning an entire docket to a single nationality is unprecedented, according to one attorney, who also pointed out that these cases are being funneled to judges with lower-than-average asylum grant rates, transforming the EOIR into a perceived political instrument.

Typically, accelerated case scheduling occurs at the behest of either Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys or the immigrants themselves. However, in these instances, legal records show no such motions from ICE, causing bewilderment among attorneys who suddenly found their calendars flooded with dozens of new hearings. This wave of rescheduling coincides with the recent retirement of Jim Stolley, ICE's chief counsel in Minnesota, adding another layer to the unfolding narrative.

Despite EOIR's spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly's refusal to comment on specific cases, the situation has created chaos for lawyers. Many found themselves scheduled for conflicting hearings across multiple states, highlighting the logistical challenges posed by the courts' decision to allow any immigration judge nationwide to hear any case. David Wilson, a Minnesota immigration attorney representing a dozen affected Somali clients, voiced strong objections to what he perceives as a deliberate targeting of specific nationalities. He expressed concern that the rushed nature of these proceedings, particularly for clients with TPS awaiting individual merits hearings, could severely disadvantage them, potentially denying them their full day in court.

The current scenario raises critical questions about the impartiality of the justice system and the protection of fundamental rights for vulnerable populations. The rapid rescheduling, especially the shift of some individual merits hearings back to master calendar hearings, suggests a systemic approach that could undermine thorough legal review. This echoes a prior memo encouraging judges to dismiss "legally deficient asylum cases without a hearing" and the increasing use of "pretermitting" strategies by ICE attorneys to deny cases based on incompleteness or perceived legal deficiency, or even by offering migrants transfer to third countries with no ties.

The concerted efforts to fast-track these asylum cases, especially for Somali immigrants, underline a concerning trend where immigration policies and legal processes appear to be influenced by political agendas rather than purely legal considerations. This situation demands a closer look into how due process is upheld for asylum seekers and the implications of such accelerated proceedings on their lives and access to fair legal representation. It also highlights the imperative for transparency and accountability within the immigration court system to ensure that justice is not compromised.