Are deportees offered a hearing before an immigration judge

1. The legal baseline: hearings are the norm in removal/deportation law

Under the federal removal framework, removal proceedings generally begin when DHS files a Notice to Appear and are adjudicated by immigration judges employed by the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, giving respondents an opportunity to be heard ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Multiple reputable legal guides and court-explainer organizations describe a two-stage court process — an initial master calendar hearing followed by an individual “merits” hearing where the respondent can present witnesses, evidence, and legal defenses — and note that the judge decides whether the person may remain in the United States ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

2. How hearings work in practice: Master Calendar, merits hearings, bonds and appeals

Practically, the first appearance is often a brief Master Calendar Hearing to schedule and frame issues, while the more consequential individual merits hearing allows presentation of evidence and testimony and can span multiple days; bond hearings may be scheduled with or during these proceedings ^{[6] [7]}. If an immigration judge issues an adverse decision, that decision can generally be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and respondents who fail to appear risk in absentia removal orders, although data suggest in absentia orders are relatively uncommon when counsel is present ^{[9] [6] [10]}.

3. The important exception: expedited removal and limited judicial review

Federal law and DHS procedures create an important exception: expedited removal permits certain noncitizens — especially those apprehended at or near the border or otherwise within specified categories — to be removed without a full immigration court hearing, though there are limited review processes for credible fear claims and asylum assertions ^{[4] [11]}. Recent policy expansions increased the use of expedited removal, meaning more people can be placed in a rapid deportation process without the right to a traditional immigration judge hearing, a change expressly criticized by advocacy groups and flagged for legal challenges ^{[5] [12]}.

4. Detention, timing and practical obstacles to a meaningful hearing

Even where a statutory right to a hearing exists, detained respondents face compressed timelines, high detention populations, and logistical barriers that can undermine meaningful access to counsel and evidence-gathering; bond hearings and remote hearings can mitigate some issues but do not erase them ^{[6] [13]}. Administrative practices such as delayed filing of NTAs, use of detention hearings, and court resource constraints can affect whether and when a person actually stands before an immigration judge ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Competing narratives, stakeholders and implicit agendas

The government frames expedited procedures as necessary for border control and efficiency, while legal aid and immigrant-rights organizations emphasize due-process harms and increased risk of wrongful removal; both perspectives are visible in the official rule changes and in watchdog reporting ^{[5] [12]}. The DOJ’s EOIR materials and court guides emphasize procedural rights and appeal routes ^{[9] [2]}, but advocacy groups point to policy shifts that expand exceptions and to data on detention surges that complicate meaningful courtroom access ^{[6] [5]}.

6. Bottom line: the direct answer

Yes — in the ordinary course most people facing deportation are offered a hearing before an immigration judge as part of removal proceedings, including initial master calendar and later merits hearings and the ability to appeal adverse rulings ^{[1] [6] [10]}. No — that right has important, statutorily authorized exceptions: expedited removal procedures and other narrow pathways can result in deportation without the usual immigration-court hearing, and policy changes after 2024–2025 expanded the use of those expedited processes, a point emphasized by legal advocates and government guidance ^{[4] [5] [11]}.