When a Case Lands in Immigration Court
Adriana Flores-Reyes has a pending asylum case in immigration court, and like most people in her position, she spent the first few weeks after receiving her hearing notice unsure what she was even allowed to ask for. That confusion is almost universal. Removal proceedings, the formal term for what most people call deportation court, aren’t designed to explain themselves. The court doesn’t hand you a menu of options. It hands you a date, and what happens next depends almost entirely on whether you know what forms of relief exist and whether you can prove you deserve one.
That’s the core of this page: a plain-English orientation to the categories of defense that may be available to someone in removal proceedings. This isn’t strategy advice and it can’t tell you which option fits your situation. A lawyer can. What it can do is help you walk into that conversation knowing roughly what’s on the table.
Relief Isn’t Automatic
The single most important thing to understand about deportation defense is that nothing happens by default. The government has charged you as removable, meaning it believes it has the legal basis to deport you. If you don’t respond, if you don’t show up, if you don’t file anything, the judge will generally order you removed. There’s no version of this where the court looks at your life and decides on its own to let you stay.
Relief from removal is something you apply for, argue for, and prove. You file an application with the court, you submit evidence, and you make your case, usually with testimony, sometimes with witnesses, always with documentation. The burden is on you. The standard of proof varies depending on the type of relief, but in every case, it’s your job to meet it. The court doesn’t do that work for you, and the government’s attorney is there to argue against you.
This is why legal representation matters more in immigration court than in almost any other setting. There’s no right to a free attorney in immigration proceedings the way there is in criminal court. If you can’t afford a lawyer, you have to find one willing to take your case pro bono or at reduced cost, and in California, those options exist in ways they don’t in most states. More on that below.
The Main Categories of Defense
Defense options in removal proceedings fall into a handful of broad categories. Each one has its own eligibility rules, its own evidentiary standards, and its own paperwork. A qualified immigration attorney or accredited representative can evaluate which ones might apply to your situation. What follows is a high-level orientation, not an eligibility guide.
Asylum
Asylum is a form of protection for people who’ve been persecuted, or who have a well-founded fear of persecution, in their home country on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. It’s one of the most commonly sought forms of relief in immigration court, and also one of the most complex. The applicant has to tell a detailed, consistent, credible story backed by evidence, and that story has to fit within the legal definition of persecution, which is narrower than most people expect. There are filing deadlines that matter, exceptions to those deadlines that also matter, and bars that can disqualify someone who would otherwise have a strong case. Under the H.R.1 fee rules, an asylum application carries a $100 filing fee, and anyone whose case has been pending for more than a year owes a separate annual fee that is adjusted for inflation each fiscal year, so the exact current amount changes from year to year (Federal Register, as of June 2026). These fees generally can’t be waived. Filing without paying the initial fee can result in a rejected application, and failing to pay the annual fee when due can jeopardize the case. If you’re filing for asylum, talk to a lawyer or legal aid organization about whether the fee applies to your situation, how to pay, and what the deadlines are. The asylum landscape is also in significant flux. USCIS paused decisions on affirmative asylum applications in December 2025, then began lifting that hold on March 30, 2026 for applicants from countries it didn’t consider high risk, while keeping it in place for nationals of dozens of travel-restricted countries. As of June 2026, a federal court in Rhode Island has vacated the underlying freeze policies, though the government may still appeal, so the practical timeline remains uncertain (Asian Law Caucus, court ruling summary). Defensive asylum cases in immigration court have continued to proceed throughout, but this area is changing quickly, so anyone with a pending or planned asylum claim should confirm the current status with a lawyer. If your case involves an asylum claim, you can learn more about how asylum works in California.
Withholding of Removal
Withholding of removal is related to asylum but has a higher standard of proof. Instead of showing a “well-founded fear” of persecution, you have to show it’s “more likely than not” that you’d be persecuted if returned. That’s a harder bar to clear. The upside is that withholding doesn’t have the same one-year filing deadline that asylum does, and some people who are barred from asylum can still qualify for withholding. The downside is that withholding doesn’t lead to a green card the way asylum can. It prevents deportation to the specific country where you’d face harm, but it doesn’t give you permanent immigration status. It’s a form of protection, not a path to residency.
Convention Against Torture (CAT) Protection
CAT protection applies when someone can show it’s more likely than not that they’d be tortured if returned to their home country, and that the torture would be carried out by or with the consent of the government there. This is a very high bar. It doesn’t require showing persecution on account of a protected ground the way asylum does, but the definition of torture under the Convention is specific and demanding. Like withholding, CAT protection prevents removal to a particular country but doesn’t provide a green card or permanent status.
Cancellation of Removal
Cancellation of removal is a defense available to people who’ve been in the United States for a long time and can show that their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying family member, typically a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. For someone without lawful status, the general requirement is continuous physical presence of at least ten years, though the details are more nuanced than a simple count of years. For lawful permanent residents facing removal, a different version of cancellation applies, with different requirements. In both cases, the judge has discretion, meaning even if you meet the legal requirements, the judge can still say no. This is one of the areas where a lawyer’s guidance matters enormously, because the hardship standard is genuinely difficult to meet, and what counts as “exceptional and extremely unusual” has been interpreted through years of case law that isn’t intuitive.
Other Forms of Relief
Several other paths may come up in removal proceedings depending on the facts of someone’s case. Victims of certain crimes may be able to pursue a U visa or T visa as a defense. Victims of domestic violence by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse may have options under VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. In some cases, a person may have a family-based petition that’s already been filed or could be filed, and that petition may provide a basis for the judge to continue (delay) the case or grant relief. Voluntary departure, where the judge allows you to leave on your own rather than being deported, is sometimes a strategic option, but it comes with consequences if you don’t follow through, and it should never be agreed to without legal advice.
Prosecutorial Discretion
Prosecutorial discretion refers to the government’s own decision about how aggressively to pursue a case. In theory, DHS attorneys have authority to agree to continuances, to decline to pursue charges, to stipulate to relief, or in rare cases to join a motion to close or terminate proceedings. In practice, since January 2025 the current administration has moved to roll back the enforcement-priority and prosecutorial discretion guidance that prior administrations had put in place, and earlier guidance that steered immigration judges and government attorneys toward prioritizing certain cases has largely been withdrawn. As a result, there are effectively no categorical prosecutorial discretion policies to rely on right now, and the government’s stated enforcement focus reaches broadly across people who are unlawfully present. Your lawyer can still make a request, but the likelihood of it being granted in the current environment is significantly lower than it was under prior administrations. A lawyer who practices in immigration court regularly will know what’s realistic right now.
Who Does What in the Courtroom
Immigration court looks different from what most people picture when they think of court. There’s no jury. The judge, called an immigration judge, works for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is part of the Department of Justice. The government is represented by an attorney from DHS, specifically from a division called ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor. That attorney’s job is to argue that you should be removed. The judge’s job is to hear both sides and decide.
The immigration judge has significant discretion in many types of cases, but that discretion has limits set by statute and by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Until recently, the BIA routinely reviewed immigration court decisions on the merits. In February 2026, the Department of Justice issued an interim final rule that made BIA merits review discretionary rather than automatic, shortened the deadline for filing most appeals from 30 days to 10, and set summary dismissal as the default unless a majority of Board members votes to take an appeal on the merits (Federal Register, as of June 2026). That rule has drawn legal challenges, and as of June 2026 its provisions have been contested in court, so which parts are actually in force can shift, and the situation remains fluid. If you’re considering an appeal of an immigration judge’s decision, talk to your attorney immediately about current procedures and deadlines, because this area of law is changing fast. If you have an attorney, your attorney argues on your behalf, presents your evidence, cross-examines witnesses, and files motions. If you don’t have an attorney, you have to do all of that yourself, in a courtroom where the other side is a trained government lawyer. The imbalance is exactly what it sounds like. For a fuller picture of what happens in the courtroom itself, see how immigration court works in California.
California’s Legal Landscape
California funds one of the largest statewide immigration legal services networks in the country. The state funds nonprofit organizations to provide free removal-defense representation to immigrants in California, and several county-level programs add further capacity, which together have expanded access to free lawyers for people in removal proceedings (California Department of Social Services, as of June 2026). This doesn’t mean everyone gets a lawyer. Demand still outstrips supply, wait lists are real, and the quality of representation varies. But the chances of finding competent, free legal help are meaningfully better here than in most of the country.
California’s sanctuary policies, primarily under SB 54, limit how state and local law enforcement cooperate with federal immigration authorities. This doesn’t affect what happens inside immigration court, which is a federal proceeding. But it does shape the broader environment. It means that in many California jurisdictions, a routine encounter with local police is less likely to result in a referral to ICE than it would be in states without similar protections, because, as of June 2026, SB 54 still bars state and local agencies from holding someone past their release date for ICE, from sharing nonpublic personal information for enforcement, and from allowing immigration interviews without written consent, outside of certain serious-crime exceptions (ACLU of Southern California). That distinction matters, though it’s important not to overstate it. SB 54 has exceptions, federal agents operate independently of state law, and enforcement priorities shift. It’s also worth knowing that as of January 2025, the federal government rescinded its longstanding “sensitive locations” policy, which had previously directed ICE to avoid enforcement actions at places like schools, hospitals, churches, and courthouses. ICE agents are now directed to use their own enforcement discretion at these locations (ICE, as of June 2026). Some limited protections remain through individual court orders, and California’s own state laws, including AB 49, provide additional safeguards at certain locations, but the federal policy that many people relied on no longer exists.
California courts also handle a significant share of the national immigration court caseload, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, has a body of case law that’s often more favorable to respondents than circuits covering other parts of the country. This doesn’t guarantee anything in an individual case, but it means that certain legal arguments may be available here that wouldn’t fly in another jurisdiction. Your attorney will know what applies.
One more thing worth knowing about the current landscape: the Laken Riley Act, signed into law in January 2025, expanded mandatory detention for people who meet two conditions (Laken Riley Act, as of June 2026). First, they must be inadmissible under specific provisions of immigration law, which most commonly applies to people who entered without inspection, used fraud or misrepresentation to obtain an immigration benefit, or lacked proper entry documents. Second, they must have been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of theft, burglary, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury. Charges alone can trigger detention, even without a conviction. Because the inadmissibility grounds can reach people with certain forms of lawful status, including some DACA recipients, TPS holders, and asylum applicants, the Act’s reach is broader than many people expect. If you’re in removal proceedings and have any criminal history, however minor, talk to your attorney about whether this law affects your detention or bond eligibility.
Next Steps
If you’re in removal proceedings or think you might be, the single most important thing you can do is talk to a qualified immigration attorney or accredited representative before your next court date. Don’t wait until the week before your hearing. Defense applications take time to prepare, evidence takes time to gather, and some filing deadlines are unforgiving. Free and low-cost legal help is available in California, and you can start looking at finding legal help near you.
If you’ve already missed a hearing or received an order of removal, that doesn’t necessarily mean your case is over, but it does mean the situation is urgent and you need legal advice immediately. If someone you know has been detained, the priority is connecting them with a lawyer as quickly as possible, because deadlines in detained cases move faster than in non-detained ones.
The information on this page is general. Your situation may be different. Before making any decisions, talk to a qualified immigration attorney or accredited representative. Free and low-cost legal help is available in California, find help here.
