Immigration Judge Independence: Annandale Judge's Account

Immigration judge independence, the rule that the judge hearing a deportation case decides it without being told the outcome, is at the center of a Washington Post report published Oct. 25. The Post reported that the Justice Department told Karen Donoso Stevens, a judge at the Annandale Immigration Court in Northern Virginia, how to rule and then pulled her from immigration court, an account the paper presented as an exclusive, firsthand look at how the administration is reshaping the courts that decide who is deported.

It matters now because the bench is turning over at record speed and because her courtroom, as the Post described it, handled detained immigrants whose lawyers were seeking bond or hearing dates. In detained cases, a changed ruling can mean months more in custody.

A record that does not fit the lenient-judge label

Donoso Stevens began hearing cases in October 2016 after about nine years as a government lawyer in ICE’s Office of the Chief Counsel in Arlington, Virginia, according to her judge profile compiled by TRAC at Syracuse University. In that period she denied asylum more often than judges nationally, though less often than her own court.

Asylum decisions on the merits	Denial rate
Judge Karen M. Donoso Stevens (136 decisions)	73.5%
All judges at the Annandale Immigration Court	79.6%
All immigration judges nationwide	62.9%

Source: TRAC at Syracuse University, judge report covering fiscal 2021 through the first nine months of fiscal 2026. Denials include cases where no form of relief was granted.

She granted asylum in 29 of those 136 cases and other relief in 7, TRAC reports, a record that does not mark her as unusually generous.

Moving a judge is allowed; dictating a ruling is not

The two halves of the Post’s headline carry very different legal weight. Immigration judges are Justice Department attorneys who act for the Attorney General, but in deciding individual cases they “shall exercise their independent judgment and discretion,” under 8 C.F.R. 1003.10(b). They are bound by the statute, the regulations, Board of Immigration Appeals precedent and Attorney General decisions.

Supervisors have broad managerial power. The Chief Immigration Judge may set priorities, assign judges and manage dockets under 8 C.F.R. 1003.9(b), so taking a judge off one docket and putting her on another is within the rules. The next paragraph sets the limit: the Chief Immigration Judge “shall have no authority to direct the result of an adjudication assigned to another immigration judge.”

The system already has a lawful way to change an outcome the government dislikes. DHS can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Attorney General can refer a Board case to himself and issue a binding decision. Both leave a written record a respondent can challenge. A private instruction to a trial judge does not, so lawyers whose clients appeared in her courtroom are likely to ask whether any ruling changed and why; a confirmed instruction would most likely surface as a due process argument on appeal or in habeas court, case by case.

The protections behind that line are thin. Immigration judges are not administrative law judges under the Administrative Procedure Act and lack those judges’ removal protections.

A bench in constant turnover

The Executive Office for Immigration Review said Oct. 22 that it is “dedicated to bringing on board new immigration judges in record numbers” as it swore in 26 more judges, six of whom came straight from ICE trial attorney jobs. Its own hiring table shows 634 judges at the end of fiscal 2025 and 662 on June 30, 2026, despite 192 hires in between, which implies about 164 departures in nine months, a calculation from EOIR’s figures.

That churn is why one judge’s account reaches beyond Annandale. New judges are inheriting dockets while the Board issues precedents narrowing trial judges’ options, from in absentia orders after returned hearing notices to continuances for U visa petitioners. Precedent is the lawful way to steer outcomes. The open question raised by the Post’s report is whether direct instructions on individual cases have been used alongside it, and the next things to watch are a public response from the Justice Department, any request for records from Congress and whether respondents’ lawyers can identify rulings that were changed.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts