Matthew O’Brien, a previous judge in Virginia’s immigration court, commenced his judicial tenure during the final phase of President Trump’s first administration. However, under the Biden administration, he was dismissed at the closure of his two-year probation term. This sparked outrage within the GOP, with allegations of politicized dismissal flaring up against the Biden administration. This came as a direct result of the dismissal of several judges who were installed under Trump’s first term.
Interestingly, O’Brien, a figure criticized for his aggressive stance on immigration matters, has been reinstated under the Trump administration. More surprisingly, he returns with a promotion, stepping up to the role of assistant chief immigration judge. The quiet nature of this move has been exposed on the Department of Justice’s website, which provides oversight for the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). The EOIR encapsulates the operations within the immigration court system.
There is no denying that O’Brien has been a vocal advocate of stricter immigration restrictions. His record as an immigration judge supports this claim, with a predominantly high rate of denied asylum requests in his courtroom. This policy, combined with his reinstatement, has spurred debates about the impartiality of immigration judges. Such impartiality is inherently critical as their decisions directly influence whether an individual can remain in or must leave the country.
David Hausman, a law professor at UC Berkeley, argues that when facing an immigration judge, there should be a foundation of trust that the official is equitably applying the law. This should be done by concentrating on the individual case rather than political affiliations. It seems, however, that this is a stance the Biden administration evidently disagrees with, as blatant bias appears to thrive.
Traditionally, immigration judges have been selected through two main avenues. First, there are those who have pursued a career within the Department of Homeland Security, prosecuting cases to remove individuals from the U.S. Secondly, those who have attained experience as attorneys representing immigrants. As such, previous involvement in immigration law isn’t a necessity for the role, another situation the Biden administration seems to disregard.
O’Brien’s past includes an important role within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. He later secured a role within the Federation for American Immigration Reform. This think tank advocates for stricter border policies and lower immigration levels, establishing an unquestionably firm stance on immigration matters.
In the common course of events, the political leanings of a civil servant, such as an immigration judge, shouldn’t warrant dismissal. The dismissal by the Biden administration was reviewed by the DOJ’s inspector general. However, the outcome of this probe revealed no sufficient evidence to initiate a full probe into the allegation of systemic bias towards immigration judge candidates under the Biden administration.
Following Trump’s return to the White House, a February memo from the Justice Department brands the ethics and legality of the Biden administration’s action unclear. This refers to the dismissal of immigration judges among other adjudicators. This memo is perceived as a potential foundation to reinstate figures allegedly unjustly dismissed by the Biden administration. Furthermore, it may also serve to remove those who were appointed under Biden’s reign.
Biden’s policies have introduced a faster pace for processing asylum cases in immigration courts, bypassing them altogether in some instances by exercising wartime powers. The administration’s underhanded politics are seen in initiatives such as promoting self-deportation by placing advertisements in court waiting rooms. O’Brien’s restoration to the EOIR denotes a possible further strategy: reinstating like-minded civil servants to adjudicating positions that steer the outcomes for immigrants.
O’Brien’s new role tasks him with oversight of judges within the Annandale court in Virginia. Further duties involve essential operational aspects of the court, such as the establishment of probationary and training requirements. A concerning aspect here is the potential heavy hand of bias that he may employ when advising the DOJ about the retention of new immigration judges beyond their probationary periods.
O’Brien’s views on immigration issues are well documented, reflecting the tougher approach favored by the Trump administration. His record includes a near 90% denial rate for asylum requests, most of which originated from El Salvador. His views border on ridicule for the majority asylum claims, suggesting they brazenly exaggerate conditions in South and Central America to gain U.S. residency.
O’Brien’s consistent pattern of decisions speaks volumes about his personal stance. The high denial rate for asylum cases under his judgement far overshadows both the national average and specific court averages at around 58% and 55% respectively. O’Brien’s policy introduces disparities based on a judge’s background, logic that cannot be upheld in a fair legal system.
Jennifer Whitlock, a senior policy counsel at the National Immigration Law Center, holds strong reservations about the Trump administration’s hiring and dismissal policies. She suggests that these practices compromise the critical impartiality of the administrative courts. While the Trump administration might believe they’re safeguarding the country, others might see their actions as turning the immigration system into a deportation factory.