The Concord Immigration Court has become the administrative hub for much of the Bay Area’s immigration docket following the September closure of the San Francisco Immigration Court. What began as a court established in 2024 to relieve pressure on an overwhelmed system is now responsible for a far larger caseload, with extensive video hearings and large preliminary calendars. Official records and local reporting show both the administrative logic of the move and the problems that have accompanied it.

From San Francisco to Concord

On May 1, 2026, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced that San Francisco’s court would close as a separate operation on September 4. The Sansome Street location would remain available for hearings under Concord’s administrative control. EOIR said the relocation from Montgomery Street was more cost-effective and that reassigned cases would receive new hearing notices.

NBC Bay Area reported that the San Francisco court had more than 115,000 pending cases and Concord nearly 59,000 before consolidation. The San Francisco Standard later described a docket exceeding 170,000 cases at Concord. Those figures were collected at different times and cannot be treated as an exact present-day total.

The Concord Immigration Court operates at 1855 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 850. It opened in 2024 as an additional venue serving Northern California. After the San Francisco restructuring, its administrative role expanded dramatically. The closure of the San Francisco court as a separate entity should not be confused with the elimination of every hearing location in San Francisco.

Mass preliminary hearings

Beginning in June, Concord scheduled unusually large master calendar hearings involving dozens of respondents. These hearings generally address preliminary procedural matters, allegations, representation and scheduling rather than decide the merits of every asylum claim.

Mission Local reported that 684 people, or 42 percent of those scheduled for June’s mega-master hearings, received removal orders in absentia. The figure describes that particular group of hearings, not the share of all Concord cases ending in removal. It also does not mean 42 percent of people who actually attended were ordered deported.

The San Francisco Standard reported that observers recorded failure-to-appear rates near 63 percent in August, falling to about 13 percent in September. Differences between periods and observer datasets limit direct comparisons. The reported decline also cautions against treating the highest summer rates as a permanent feature of the court.

Local reporters documented long security lines, confusion over courtroom assignments and individuals traveling long distances for hearings. Some respondents may be unfamiliar with a new courthouse or receive revised hearing notices amid a major administrative transition. Those possibilities do not, by themselves, establish why any particular person missed a hearing.

When hearings move years forward

NBC Bay Area reported that some hearing dates originally scheduled for 2028 or 2029 were moved forward by years, sometimes leaving only weeks before an appearance. Attorney Heliodoro Moreno of Stand Together Contra Costa described the difficulty such changes could create for clients seeking representation and assembling evidence. EOIR said it changes schedules to prevent cases from languishing.

One woman interviewed by NBC, Devony Hodson, said her hearing was moved from 2027 to July 2026 after she received a notice in May. Subsequent continuances changed her schedule again, and her final hearing was eventually set for December 2028. Her experience shows that a newly accelerated preliminary appearance does not necessarily lead to an immediate final ruling. Yet the initial notice can still carry substantial consequences if a respondent does not know the date or cannot reach the assigned courtroom.

Judges on screens

Bloomberg Law reported on November 6 that only four of 21 judges associated with Concord were appearing in person, citing Jeremiah Johnson, executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. That statement concerns physical presence, not whether the other judges were working or whether all 17 were outside California. An earlier NBC report counted 20 judges in October, reflecting a different reporting date and potentially different counting conventions.

Video-conference immigration hearings are permitted under federal law and EOIR rules. The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes removal proceedings by video, and the EOIR Immigration Court Practice Manual explains that the judge, respondent, government attorney and witnesses need not occupy the same location. The central concern is not the existence of video technology but how attendance requirements, interpretation, access to counsel and identification of people present in the courtroom work in practice.

Bloomberg Law documented situations in other courts in which respondents and lawyers traveled to appear in person while a judge participated remotely from another state. That investigation does not establish that every Concord judge imposes such a requirement. But the widespread use of remote judging at Concord makes the distribution of travel burdens an important local question.

A removal order when someone is already inside

NBC Bay Area reported court observer Sergio Jaime Lopez’s account of a woman who was physically inside a courtroom but allegedly was not visible to a remote judge and received an in absentia removal order. The incident is an attributed observer report, not an independently established judicial finding. It nevertheless illustrates a practical issue: who verifies attendance when a judge sees only part of a courtroom through a camera?

A video link can transmit testimony but does not automatically reproduce the full situational awareness of a judge physically present. In absentia removal orders are governed by statutory notice and failure-to-appear requirements and may be subject to reopening under specified circumstances. Their prevalence cannot be evaluated solely as a measure of administrative speed.

New judges and a changed workload

NBC Bay Area reported substantial turnover among Concord judges and said at least five newly appointed judges had previously worked as ICE attorneys. Prior employment with ICE does not by itself establish bias or improper decision-making in an individual case. EOIR says new immigration judges receive classroom and on-the-job training. Attorneys interviewed by local media expressed concern about the pace of hearings and the experience of some appointees.

Bloomberg Law reported a related concern about judges working remotely: newer judges may have fewer opportunities to consult experienced colleagues informally. That is an assessment raised by judges and lawyers, not a measured finding that remote judges necessarily issue less accurate decisions.

Scrutiny from Congress and the public

Representative Mark DeSaulnier, whose congressional district includes Concord, questioned the rationale for closing the San Francisco court and whether Concord had sufficient resources to absorb transferred cases. NBC Bay Area reported that he had not received answers to those questions at the time of its coverage. Mission Local also reported litigation seeking government records about the large preliminary calendars.

The debate involves more than individual removal outcomes. Immigration courts are administrative tribunals within the Justice Department, not independent Article III federal courts. They must process a large caseload while providing the procedural protections required by federal law. Moving judges and cases across locations may improve scheduling flexibility, but it also raises questions about access to hearings, interpretation, legal representation, public observation and consistency in applying controlling appellate precedent.

What remains unknown

The available reporting does not establish the precise proportion of Concord hearings presided over by judges physically located in another state, the number of removal orders subsequently reopened, or whether video hearings themselves caused the high nonappearance rates observed during parts of the summer. Nor do the June and August figures establish why each person missed a hearing.

The closure, administrative transfer of cases, large preliminary calendars and substantial remote judicial participation are documented. Whether the system can deliver faster case completion while preserving meaningful participation and public access remains unresolved.

The story of Concord is therefore not simply about judges appearing on screens. It is about the consequences of turning a court originally intended to relieve a backlog into the administrative hub for a vast regional docket. As the government counts completed cases, lawyers and observers are asking whether the people whose cases are being completed can still reliably find the courtroom, understand the proceedings and be heard.

Sources for editorial verification

- EOIR, official San Francisco closure announcement: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1439236/dl?inline= - EOIR, Concord Immigration Court: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/concord-immigration-court - EOIR, internet-based hearing directory: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/find-immigration-court-and-access-internet-based-hearings - NBC Bay Area, reporting on Concord due process: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/due-process-concord-immigration-court/4154025/ - Mission Local, June mega-master hearings: https://missionlocal.org/2026/07/concord-immigration-mega-master-hearings-deportation/ - San Francisco Standard, October investigation: https://sfstandard.com/2026/10/15/target-their-back-immigration-court-chaos-spreads-removal-orders-soar/ - Bloomberg Law, November 6 remote-judges investigation: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/remote-immigration-judges-advance-trumps-rapid-deportations