The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Donald Trump has quietly dismissed New York-based immigration judge Vivienne Gordon-Uruakpa, a jurist known for approving asylum claims at one of the highest rates in the country.
Gordon-Uruakpa, a Black female judge married to a Nigerian-American, was removed from her position in September without public announcement, according to reports first highlighted by the New York Post. Her dismissal reportedly followed scrutiny of her rulings, which favored asylum seekers in approximately 97 percent of the cases she adjudicated — the highest approval rate among immigration judges in New York.
Since her termination, Gordon-Uruakpa’s name has been removed from the official website of the downtown Manhattan immigration courthouse where she previously served. The lack of a formal statement explaining her departure has raised concerns among immigration attorneys and advocacy groups about transparency and judicial independence within the immigration court system.
When contacted for comment, the DOJ declined to provide specific details regarding the judge’s removal, stating only that the court’s website “is up to date.” The department did not address questions about whether her high asylum approval rate played a role in the decision.
Her abrupt dismissal comes amid what observers describe as a broader restructuring of the immigration judiciary under the Trump administration. Immigration judges operate within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which falls under the authority of the Justice Department. Unlike Article III federal judges, immigration judges do not enjoy lifetime tenure or constitutional protections. They are executive branch employees and can be appointed or removed by the Attorney General.
Currently, that authority rests with Pam Bondi, who holds the statutory power to hire, discipline, and dismiss immigration judges. Critics argue that this structural arrangement leaves immigration courts particularly vulnerable to political influence, especially during periods of aggressive enforcement policy shifts.
Reports indicate that more than 100 immigration judges have been dismissed during the Trump administration’s tenure, as deportation rates have increased and border enforcement policies have intensified. While the DOJ has framed such personnel changes as administrative decisions aligned with policy priorities, critics contend they reflect a systematic effort to reshape the immigration judiciary toward stricter adjudication standards.
Data compiled by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) indicates that nearly 80 percent of migrants seeking asylum were deported in the last quarter. Analysts note that asylum outcomes often vary significantly depending on which judge presides over a case, creating disparities that have been described by critics as a “judicial lottery.”
Gordon-Uruakpa, 66, brought a distinctive professional background to the bench. She studied at Fordham University before earning her law degree from Howard University School of Law. Her legal career included years of work in legal aid and criminal defense — experience that colleagues say shaped her sensitivity to due process concerns and the evidentiary burdens faced by asylum applicants.
Observers note that asylum adjudication involves complex determinations regarding credibility, country conditions, and whether applicants meet the statutory definition of a refugee under U.S. law. Approval rates can vary widely based on how judges interpret legal standards, evaluate testimony, and weigh documentary evidence. Supporters of Gordon-Uruakpa argue that a high approval rate does not necessarily indicate bias, but may reflect careful adherence to humanitarian protections embedded in asylum law.
However, critics of lenient asylum adjudication argue that unusually high approval rates may signal inconsistent application of legal thresholds, potentially undermining enforcement objectives. The Justice Department has not publicly stated whether performance metrics related to approval rates were considered in Gordon-Uruakpa’s termination.
Her removal has attracted renewed attention following recent reports examining disparities in asylum outcomes across jurisdictions. Those reports underscore how the identity of the assigned judge can significantly influence case results, reinforcing concerns about uneven application of immigration law nationwide.
In parallel developments, John Burns — widely regarded as one of New York’s strictest judges on asylum claims — was appointed Acting Assistant Chief Judge in January. Analysts interpret his elevation as a signal of institutional realignment within the New York immigration court system toward stricter enforcement priorities.
Immigration courts occupy a unique and often controversial position within the U.S. legal framework. Unlike federal district courts, they function as administrative tribunals within the executive branch. Appeals from immigration judges proceed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), also housed within the DOJ, before potentially reaching federal appellate courts. This structure has long prompted debate over whether immigration adjudication should be removed from executive oversight and placed within an independent Article I court system to enhance judicial autonomy.
Civil liberties advocates argue that the dismissal of judges based on their asylum approval rates risks politicizing adjudication and chilling judicial discretion. They contend that immigration judges must be free to evaluate evidence independently, without fear that deviation from enforcement preferences could result in termination.
The Justice Department has consistently maintained that personnel decisions are internal matters and has declined to disclose the specific rationale behind Gordon-Uruakpa’s dismissal. That refusal to elaborate has intensified speculation about whether political considerations influenced the decision.
Historically, previous U.S. administrations rarely removed immigration judges over their asylum approval records alone. While policy priorities have shifted between administrations, large-scale dismissals tied to adjudication patterns have been less common, according to immigration law scholars.
The broader context of heightened enforcement under the Trump administration includes expanded deportation operations, tighter asylum eligibility standards, and increased scrutiny of humanitarian claims. As deportations rise and border policies grow more restrictive, the composition of the immigration judiciary has become an increasingly consequential factor in shaping outcomes for asylum seekers.
For now, Gordon-Uruakpa’s departure underscores the structural vulnerability of immigration judges within an executive-controlled system. Her case has reignited debate over whether immigration adjudication can remain impartial when judges lack tenure protections and serve at the discretion of political appointees.
Whether her dismissal represents routine administrative reshuffling or a targeted recalibration of asylum adjudication standards remains a matter of dispute. What is clear, however, is that immigration courts continue to sit at the center of one of the most contentious policy arenas in American governance — where law, politics, and humanitarian obligations intersect with profound consequences for thousands of migrants seeking refuge in the United States.
