On a recent day in San Antonio immigration court, Judge Cynthia Lafuente-Gaona had 143 names on her docket and fewer than 20 people in the room, a scene that captured a growing move to squeeze first hearings into crowded “mega” sessions. The packed scheduling is sold as a way to chip away at a multi-million-case backlog, but families and lawyers say the speed-up can leave people without notice and at real risk of in-absentia deportation. That day, Lafuente-Gaona split the list into morning and afternoon blocks, handed out short continuances to many respondents, and repeatedly urged them to find legal help.
As reported by The Washington Post, Lafuente-Gaona read those who did appear their rights, reset most cases for August to give them time to secure an attorney, and warned that many of the names on the list would face removal orders if they did not show. The piece described group-style questioning and parents juggling small children while they waited to be called. Judges and advocates told the paper that the format, sometimes called “mega masters,” can be efficient when notices reach people reliably, but turns hazardous when letters are missed or court requires a long trip or the risk of encounters with local police or ICE.
How mega masters work
Across the immigration-court system, master-calendar sessions are being set up to stack 100 or more people into a single block so judges can move through dozens of first appearances in a day, a rollout described by KPBS. Attorneys say sudden rescheduling, sometimes years earlier than the original date, puts unrepresented people in particular danger of missing notice, arriving unprepared, and ending up with in-absentia removal orders. Court officials say the approach helps whittle down waiting times, while civil-rights groups argue it is a blunt instrument that trims away the chance for careful, case-by-case review.
Backlog and scale
Data from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse show the immigration-court backlog sitting in the low-to-mid three-millions as of early 2026, which helps explain the scramble to clear dockets. TRAC recently reported more than 3.3 million pending cases, a scale that has led the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Department of Justice to tout faster scheduling and a major hiring push. For many respondents, though, the acceleration means less time to find counsel or gather evidence before a hearing date is abruptly moved up.
Policy shifts that raised the stakes
The pressure of these mass hearings lands harder because of recent appellate and Board of Immigration Appeals rulings that have tightened access to relief and narrowed judges’ discretionary tools, including a 2025 BIA decision that the board says cuts off bond hearings for certain entrants. The Board’s interim decision in Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, published by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, held that immigration judges lack authority to hear bond requests for people present in the United States without admission, and the decision is posted on the EOIR site. Legal groups such as the Brennan Center have argued that recent precedents and policy memos also narrow asylum eligibility and shorten appellate windows, which makes a single missed hearing exponentially more dangerous.
In San Antonio, the human picture
Observers in San Antonio described parents, grandparents, and children who had traveled long distances to meet a newly scheduled date, only to find a process that felt more like an expedited roll call than a day in court. According to The Washington Post, one judge told a group of respondents, “If you came here only to seek a better life or are escaping general violence in your country, this court cannot help you,” a line that sent many scrambling for legal advice. Immigration attorneys said those moments showed how easily a supposedly procedural master hearing can start to feel like a quick-and-dirty merits screen.
What people with cases should do
The San Antonio immigration court posts contact information and basic guidance on the Department of Justice website, including hours and a public email for general inquiries. The court’s official listing is available through EOIR. Advocates and local reporters interviewed by KPBS advise respondents to keep checking the EOIR portal, confirm any date changes directly with the court, and seek representation immediately if a notice arrives.
The drive to move millions of pending cases is very real. So are the consequences when speed starts to crowd out notice and preparation. What is unfolding in San Antonio is a reminder that how courts move cases can matter just as much as how many they clear.
