Executive Office for Immigration Review

EOIR was created in 1983 by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as part of an internal reorganization.^[6] Prior to 1983, the functions performed by EOIR were divided among different agencies. The earliest version of a specialized immigration service was the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), created in 1933, in the Department of Labor.^[7] Seven years later, in 1940, the INS moved from Labor to its present location in the Department of Justice. Twelve years after moving to DOJ, in 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act organized all U.S. immigration laws into one statute, and designated "special inquiry officers," the predecessors of immigration judges, to decide questions of deportation.^[8]


EOIR adjudicates cases under a patchwork of immigration laws and regulations, including:


In addition to these statutes, other federal statutes, agency regulations, and executive orders, federal courts also play an important role immigration law. Because litigants have the right to appeal a decision to federal courts of appeal, different areas of the United States effectively have different immigration laws, notwithstanding Supreme Court review. In addition, federal statutes not facially related to immigration also may play a role in admissibility, including those related to public benefits.

Criticism and controversies[edit]

The Attorney General's use of precedent decisions has been subject to criticism.^[27] Some commentators have argued that the use of the power, instead of settling doctrine, has departed from agency procedures and practices, adjudicated issues not relevant to a particular case, and disrupted the development of circuit law by adopting the minority view.^[27][28]


EOIR has also been criticized for the significant backlog of immigration cases; as of December 2020, there are more than 1.2 million pending cases across the immigration courts.^[29] In 2018, the Department of Justice instituted case quotas for immigration judges, requiring each to complete 700 cases per year, a rate requiring each IJ to close more than two cases per day.^[30] The president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, stated that the policy was an "unprecedented act which compromises the integrity of the court."^[31]


In February 2024 Bloomberg Law News reports the Department of Justice paid 1.2 million dollars to resolve a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment by an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge.^[32] This follows findings by the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General in March 2022, September 2023 and January 2024 of Immigration Judges who violated the Departments zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment and the ethical rules applicable to Immigration Judges.


In January 2021, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Executive Office for Immigration Review had failed to prevent or appropriately respond to multiple instances of sexual harassment by judges and supervisors.^[33] Tal Kopan, the reporter who broke the story, added later in an interview that more allegations not included in the story indicated that the problem was widespread and not an isolated occurrence.^[34]


A November 2019 report by the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General found that "senior managers" involved in the hiring of Immigration Judges had used a system of "code words" to rate "the attractiveness" of female candidates.^[35] The report also found that this conduct "could give rise to claims of sexual harassment or claims of prohibited personnel practices."^[36]