Each year, immigration judges from The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice preside over immigration court proceedings for hundreds of thousands of respondents—foreign nationals charged on statutory grounds of removability. Immigration court proceedings occur both in-person and using remote technology, such as WebEx—an internet-based video teleconferencing platform, or telephone. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released its report reviewing EOIR’s use of remote technology in immigration hearings: Immigration Courts: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Use of Remote Hearings (GAO-26-108110).
Questions
- What issues were the basis of GAO’s review and what key agencies were involved?
EOIR immigration judges preside over immigration cases and associated hearings to decide whether noncitizen respondents—foreign nationals charged as removable for violating immigration law—are removable as charged under immigration law. If so, these judges decide if the respondent may be granted any requested protection or other relief to lawfully remain in the U.S. At the individual discretion of the immigration judge, immigration hearings may be held in-person in a courtroom or using a remote technology medium, such as WebEx, traditional video teleconference, or telephone.
2. What are the most important takeaways from GAO’s review?
Of the nearly 6 million hearings held from fiscal year 2022 through 2025, about 63 percent or 3.8 million hearings were in-person, according to GAO’s analysis. Of the approximately 2.2 million remote hearings, most used WebEx (about 78 percent or 1.7 million).
During this time, the number of remote hearings increased almost 50 percent, while the number of in-person hearings increased more dramatically. EOIR officials stated that as the COVID-19 pandemic subsided, immigration courts began scheduling more hearings overall, with more hearings taking place in-person.
Immigration court stakeholders that GAO interviewed described generally favorable experiences with remote immigration hearings. They identified benefits of using remote technology, such as reducing the time and cost associated with in-person hearings, increasing the efficiency of hearings, and allowing respondents increased access to private bar attorneys.
3. What challenges did GAO identify during the review, and what efforts, if any, are being made to address these challenges in the future?
Some court stakeholders GAO interviewed provided perspectives on challenging aspects of remote hearings. For example, there can be technology limitations for language interpretation options in remote hearings. Language interpretation is frequently needed for respondents who are not sufficiently proficient in the English language. For in-person hearings where the respondent and the language interpreter are in the same location, EOIR is able to use simultaneous interpretation—where the respondent wears headphones so the interpreter can provide translation continuously in real time—to hold the hearing and create the required digital audio recorded transcript.
In contrast, with consecutive interpretation, participants must pause after each statement, so the interpreter can provide the translation. In hearings where the respondent and language interpreter are not in the same location, current WebEx technology does not allow for simultaneous interpretation, according to EOIR officials. Consecutive interpretation is less efficient and can cause hearings to take double or triple the time compared to hearings with simultaneous language interpretation, according to EOIR officials and some court stakeholders
EOIR officials stated that WebEx does not have the capability to accommodate simultaneous language interpretation and create the required digital audio recording of a hearing. They noted that WebEx was not developed with this purpose or capability in mind. However, EOIR officials also stated they are aware of this issue and are exploring ways to add this technological capability as options become available.
