What are the step-by-step stages of a federal removal (deportation) case in the U.S. immigration court system?
Executive summary
The available sources describe two parallel paths that can lead to a federal “removal” (deportation) outcome: [1] removal proceedings in the U.S. immigration courts overseen by DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), where an individual is served with a Notice to Appear, attends master-calendar and merits hearings, and can seek relief such as asylum; and [2] administrative “expedited removal” or fast‑track processes run by DHS that can bypass typical immigration‑court procedures and produce rapid deportations, sometimes with a limited credible‑fear screening (CFI) [3] [4] [5]. Reporting and advocacy groups document extensive use of expedited dismissal motions and courthouse arrests in 2025 that funnel many respondents into expedited removal or lead to immediate deportation after court dismissal [6] [7] [8].
1. Arrest, intake and charging: the DHS/ICE encounter that starts most cases
Most removal cases begin when DHS (Customs and Border Protection or ICE) takes custody of a noncitizen — through a border encounter, interior arrest, or courthouse/check‑in arrest — and files charging paperwork or places the person into an expedited removal track; ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations runs identification, detention, and custody transfers that feed both detention and court dockets [4] [7] [6]. Reporting in 2025 shows increases in courthouse arrests and interior enforcement designed to accelerate removals [7] [9].
2. Notice to Appear and docketing in immigration court (traditional removal proceedings)
If DHS issues a Notice to Appear (NTA), EOIR dockets the case and the respondent is scheduled for a Master Calendar Hearing, where charges are read, plea or relief claims are raised, and procedural dates set. EOIR is housed within DOJ, meaning immigration judges run removal trials and decide eligibility for relief such as asylum, withholding, or cancellation of removal [3] [10]. TRAC and EOIR data show a massive backlog—millions of pending cases—so timelines can stretch for months or years absent expedited processing [11] [10].
3. Master Calendar hearings, motions, and the risk of on‑the‑spot dismissal
At Master Calendar, respondents can request counsel, file applications for relief, or contest the charges. Recent reporting documents a surge in ICE oral motions to dismiss immigration‑court cases—often on the spot—to push people into expedited removal and deprive them of their 10‑day response window; ICE directed prosecutors to pursue these dismissals beginning May 20, 2025, and judges in many courts have granted them at high rates [6]. Advocacy groups say that practice circumvents typical notice and procedural protections [6].
4. Merits (individual) hearing and evidence: the trial phase
If the case remains in immigration court, an Individual Merits Hearing is scheduled. The respondent may testify, present witnesses and documentary evidence, and press legal claims (asylum, withholding, CAT relief, cancellation). Immigration judges render written decisions that either order removal or grant relief; where relief is denied, DHS can secure deportation once administrative appeals are exhausted or waived [3] [12].
5. Expedited removal and credible‑fear interviews: a faster, limited review
Separately, DHS can subject people to expedited removal—a rapid administrative process that can lead to deportation without a full immigration‑court hearing. In expedited removal, an asylum officer conducts a credible‑fear interview (CFI); if the officer finds no credible fear, the expedited removal order generally stands, though the person can request review by an immigration judge within narrow timing (often within 7 days for judge review of CFIs) [4] [5]. Courts in 2025 limited DHS’s expansion of expedited removal away from the border, citing risks of erroneous summary removals; litigation over scope and procedures remains active [13] [14].
6. Appeals: Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts
A removal order from an immigration judge can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). After the BIA, limited review may be available in the federal courts of appeals; separate federal litigation also challenges DHS policies (e.g., third‑country removals and expedited‑removal expansions), and the Supreme Court has weighed in on some aspects such as third‑country deportations [15] [16]. Available sources indicate active, high‑profile litigation in 2025 challenging administration practices [17] [15].
7. Enforcement of the removal order and departures (voluntary or forced)
Once a final removal order is effective, ICE’s ERO arranges detention, travel documents, and transportation. Some deportations are voluntary departures; others are enforced removals or rapid repatriations, including mass flight operations that have prompted contempt inquiries and media scrutiny [4] [17]. Reporting indicates the administration in 2025 pursued large‑scale removals and occasionally deported people to third countries, prompting litigation and mixed judicial rulings [16] [15].
8. Key areas of dispute and practical implications for respondents
Journalistic and advocacy sources disagree about how often processes afford meaningful hearings: DOJ/EOIR processes remain the formal route for defense and relief [3] [10], while immigrant‑rights groups and investigative reporting document practices—courthouse arrests, immediate dismissals, and expanded expedited removal—that truncate these procedures and raise due‑process concerns [6] [8] [9]. Courts have sometimes blocked or limited expansions of fast‑track removal, finding due‑process risks [13] [14].
Limitations: available sources detail both the formal immigration‑court workflow and the parallel accelerated administrative tracks and litigation around them, but do not provide a single line‑by‑line statutory checklist; readers should consult EOIR practice manuals and counsel for case‑specific steps [3] [4].