On Monday, an immigration judge at the New York immigration court in Manhattan ran a so‑called "mega master" docket that crammed more than a hundred deportation cases into a single day. By the time court wrapped up, dozens of people had been ordered removed in absentia after not showing up. Several attendees said they only realized their hearing dates had been moved because they kept checking the EOIR online portal.
As reported by the Brooklyn Eagle, the Executive Office for Immigration Review deployed the tactic at the 290 Broadway courthouse, where Immigration Judge Arya Ranasinghe was handed a docket of 121 cases and told the packed room, "I have such a voluminous docket today." By early evening Ranasinghe had issued removal orders for 39 people and their family members who did not appear after court staff concluded that "proper notice was sent," the article reports.
Government says it is about clearing the backlog
The Justice Department and EOIR say these kinds of schedule shifts are part of a broader push to cut into a massive pending caseload and speed up decisions. In a recent DOJ release announcing a record class of new immigration judges, the agency said reducing the immigration court backlog remains one of its highest priorities and highlighted extensive hiring to expand the bench. The administration presents the scheduling changes as a necessary way to move millions of unresolved cases toward final rulings rather than as an attempt to dodge due process requirements.
Backlog and scale
The effort comes as immigration courts face record congestion. Recent data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) show roughly 3.3 million active cases pending, according to KQED. That scale, especially given that many respondents appear without lawyers, has become the central policy argument behind EOIR's scheduling overhaul.
How "mega masters" work and the legal risk
Master calendar hearings are typically quick procedural check‑ins, but immigration lawyers say the new "mega master" setup groups 100 or more respondents before a single judge so courts can churn through dockets faster. Attorneys told ABC News that abrupt rescheduling and mass dockets hit people without lawyers the hardest.
Federal law requires written notice of hearing dates and any changes. Missing a proceeding that the court deems properly noticed can lead to an in absentia removal order, and courts have stressed the importance of the statute's notice rules in cases such as Cornell Law School's posting of Pereira v. Sessions.
Advocates and human stories
Advocates say the New York rollout shows how the scheduling drive can produce harsh, sometimes dizzying outcomes. "Instead of allowing them to go through the process and uphold their rights, they're going to continue to try to undermine our community’s rights every single day," Murad Awawdeh of the New York Immigration Coalition told reporters, as the Brooklyn Eagle reports.
The same coverage describes one young mother, who identified herself as Eisha, saying she only learned her hearing had been moved because she repeatedly checked the online portal to confirm the date. In this system, obsessive refreshing is not paranoia, it is survival strategy.
What people with cases can do
Immigration groups and lawyers are urging respondents and their representatives to monitor the EOIR case portal and to verify hearing dates directly with the court, since notices are sometimes not mailed. The American Immigration Lawyers Association and other practitioners have pushed for constant calendar checks, and ABC News has repeatedly reported that attorneys now routinely advise clients to watch for last‑minute changes.
EOIR also posts judges' Webex links and contact numbers for local courts, which can help people confirm when and how their hearings will take place.
For New Yorkers caught in these rolling policy shifts, the on‑the‑ground reality is a scramble for legal help and a race to lock down court dates. Community providers that were already stretched are now facing even more strain as EOIR pushes to move millions of pending cases. How many of these hurried dockets actually resolve cases fairly, and how many will later be reopened, remains the central question for advocates, judges and the people whose futures hang on those calendar entries.
