97% Asylum Rate Triggers DOJ Purge

A DOJ immigration judge with a jaw-dropping 97% asylum approval rate has been fired—raising fresh questions about whether America’s immigration courts are enforcing the law or functioning as a one-way valve.

Quick Take

DOJ removed Immigration Judge Vivienne Gordon-Uruakpa in September 2025; the firing became public in February 2026.
Data cited in reporting shows Gordon-Uruakpa approved 806 of 924 asylum cases from 2019–2024, a 97% approval rate—well above New York peers and the national average.
The termination occurred amid broader immigration-judge dismissals during Trump’s second term, even as the immigration-court backlog exceeds 3.7 million pending cases.
Critics argue the removals undermine due process and civil-service protections; the administration maintains DOJ authority to manage personnel as it executes immigration enforcement policy.

What the DOJ firing reveals about asylum decision-making

Judge Vivienne Gordon-Uruakpa’s removal stands out because the available numbers are unusually clear. Reporting based on case data says she handled 924 asylum cases from 2019 through 2024, approving 806 and denying 88, producing a 97% grant rate. That figure was described as the highest in New York, compared with roughly 65% approval in New York generally and about 40% nationally.

DOJ fired Gordon-Uruakpa in September 2025, but the action drew broad attention only after it was publicly reported on February 21, 2026. That gap matters because it suggests the personnel change occurred with limited immediate public scrutiny. The underlying policy dispute is straightforward: asylum is intended for legally qualifying claims, yet a near-automatic approval rate fuels suspicion among enforcement-minded Americans that adjudication can drift into activism rather than neutral application of statute.

How immigration judges fit inside the executive branch

Immigration judges work under DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, meaning they are not Article III federal judges with life tenure. They function as executive-branch adjudicators and, historically, were commonly converted to permanent roles after completing a two-year probationary period. That structure gives DOJ more managerial leverage than Americans may assume, while still raising expectations of fair hearings, consistent standards, and professional competence across courts handling life-altering cases.

The firings described across 2025 show a pattern of abrupt removals and limited explanation. Reporting cited waves that began in February 2025, when 20 judges were removed, including 13 not yet sworn in; another round followed in July with 15 terminations dated July 22; and September saw 19 dismissals, the largest since February. In December, eight judges at New York’s Federal Plaza court were reportedly fired without stated cause.

Backlog pressure collides with personnel churn

Immigration courts already face operational strain, with reporting placing the pending-case backlog above 3.7 million. Against that backdrop, removing experienced judges can create immediate vacancies, postpone hearings, and extend uncertainty for both respondents and the government. For communities demanding stronger border control and faster removals of illegal immigrants, the backlog is a prime example of government dysfunction—yet judge churn can cut against the goal of timely decisions if cases slow even further.

Concerns also extend to who fills the gaps. Reporting describes a practice of replacing some dismissed judges with temporary military attorneys, with critics arguing that limited immigration-law experience could reduce consistency and legal quality in asylum and removal rulings. The available research does not quantify how widespread those temporary placements are, but it underscores a core risk: swapping out seasoned adjudicators without maintaining expertise can produce more appeals, more remands, and more delay—regardless of one’s politics.

Due process claims, civil-service disputes, and what’s provable so far

Democrats in Congress and outside critics have framed the dismissals as a threat to judicial independence, pointing to the lack of advance notice and the stress placed on courts. A lawsuit by former judge Tania Nemer alleges discrimination and retaliation, invoking Title VII and First Amendment issues, and remains active based on the research provided. Legal commentary cited in reporting argues Congress should investigate possible civil-service violations if terminations are being used to shape outcomes.

At the same time, the evidence base differs by case. For Gordon-Uruakpa, the unusually high grant rate is documented in reporting and is central to how her firing has been presented to the public. For other judges, the research repeatedly notes that specific reasons were not clearly stated, with some explanations described as suspected or inferred from patterns such as professional background. That distinction matters for Americans who want constitutional governance: the strongest conclusions should track the strongest documented facts.

The DOJ Has Canned the Most Liberal Immigration Judge in America https://t.co/xS6Rv139AT

— Fearless45 (@Fearless45Trump) February 21, 2026

The larger fight is about whether immigration courts will act as neutral arbiters or become a policy lever that swings with politics. Conservatives tend to agree the executive branch has authority to enforce immigration laws and remove obstacles to that enforcement. But lasting legitimacy depends on transparent standards and consistent process—especially when decisions affect national sovereignty, public safety, and the integrity of citizenship itself. The public still lacks a single, comprehensive accounting of total firings beyond “over 100.”