Federal immigration courts in Chicago and nationwide have experienced a sharp decline in asylum approvals, dropping to 3.3% in Chicago so far this year compared to 14.6% last year, according to a Chicago Sun-Times and WBEZ analysis of immigration court data. The national average fell to 2.1%, down from 8.8%, amid an overhaul of the immigration court system by the Department of Justice that began in January 2025.
Chicago Immigration Court Asylum Approvals Plunge Amid Department of Justice Shake-Up
The policy shifts follow a federal push under the second Trump administration to ramp up deportations and accelerate case completions. Legal advocates, attorneys, and recently dismissed judges report that the Department of Justice has altered hiring standards, replaced veteran jurists, and imposed heavier caseloads with stricter rules designed to limit asylum grants.
New Judicial Appointments and Low Approval Rates
The administrative restructuring brought a wave of new hires to the Chicago immigration court bench, many of whom lack prior experience in immigration law. Seven of the 10 recently appointed judges in Chicago previously worked in military, administrative, municipal, or general law rather than specialized immigration practice, public records show.
Among the new appointees is Judge Matthew C. Beese, who took the bench in October. Prior to his appointment, Judge Beese served as a municipal judge in Oklahoma and an administrative law judge for an Oklahoma state regulatory commission, with a legal background that included practice in family, criminal, and general law in Oklahoma and Illinois. Judge Beese currently maintains one of the lowest asylum approval rates in Chicago.
In one recent case handled by Judge Beese, a gay Venezuelan man sought asylum after testifying that local police kidnapped, harassed, and sodomized him because of his sexual orientation. The applicant testified in August that the officers swore revenge after he reported the assaults, stating, “They will kill me, these police officers… I don’t want to return.” Judge Beese denied the asylum claim, citing doubts regarding whether the officers would ride on a single motorcycle with their victim, noting a lack of crucial details in the documents, and concluding that the officers acted on a personal grudge rather than official state action.
Concerns Over Due Process and Court Backlogs
The Department of Justice oversees the immigration courts and has defended the personnel changes as a necessary step to manage heavy dockets and ensure uniform legal standards. In a statement declining an interview, a DOJ press office representative said, “Reducing the immigration court backlog remains one of the highest priorities for this administration. The Justice Department is restoring integrity to our immigration system by hearing cases fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly, in accordance with the law.”
Critics, including recently ousted judges, contend that the changes threaten judicial independence and due process. Eva Saltzman, one of several Chicago immigration judges fired without explanation during the judicial turnover, questioned the direction of the court. “When people talk about justice in our immigration system, I think the important piece is whether someone has had their day in court,” Saltzman said, “and I think whether individuals receive due process is a reflection of the integrity of the judge and the integrity of the government overall.”
Legal professionals practicing in Chicago also note that recruitment materials for the courts explicitly target candidates suited for removal operations. The Department of Justice website has continuously advertised open positions using the designation “deportation judge,” reflecting the administration’s primary objective to expedite removals and clear pending dockets.
Related reading