Status as of September 7, 2026. On September 4, 2026, NPR reported that cases out of the Hyattsville and Baltimore immigration courts in Maryland and the Sterling court in Virginia were being rescheduled to two buildings not publicly listed by EOIR as regular in-person hearing locations: one in Falls Church, Virginia, and one at Federal Center Plaza, 400 C St SW, in Washington, D.C. Five immigration attorneys described notices arriving days before the new date, and in at least two instances no mailed notice at all. On September 5 The Washington Post reported, citing five agency officials and an internal email, that a conference center at FEMA headquarters in Washington is being prepared for immigration hearings, to be used by DHS together with the Justice Department. EOIR has said it will continue making scheduling adjustments and opening hearing locations as needed; it has not explained the specific reassignments.
A change in the time or place of a removal hearing is ordinarily routine paperwork. It stops being routine when the notice arrives days ahead, or does not arrive at all, because failure to appear at a removal hearing can produce an order of removal issued in the person's absence. That consequence is what makes the notice question legal rather than administrative. Below: what the regulations actually require when a hearing is moved, what the widely cited ten-day rule does and does not cover, what an in absentia order is, and what the statute provides when notice was never received.
In brief
Federal regulations require written notice when the time or place of a removal hearing changes; there is no general rule setting a minimum number of days for a rescheduled hearing.
The ten-day rule that circulates in coverage comes from a different provision — it governs the interval between service of the Notice to Appear and the initial hearing, and can be waived.
Where notice was not received, a motion to reopen an in absentia order may be filed at any time under the statute.
What the reporting describes
NPR's account rests on five immigration attorneys who reviewed notices or observed proceedings. According to that reporting, respondents scheduled at Hyattsville, Baltimore, and Sterling were reassigned to Falls Church and to the Washington, D.C. address; some learned of the change days in advance, and in at least two identified cases no mailed notice was received. One attorney described a hearing moved up by more than a month with eight days' notice.
The attorneys interviewed said the changes appeared disproportionately to affect people who were unrepresented at the time their hearings were moved. That is an observation drawn from a small number of cases, not an established agency policy, and EOIR has not addressed it.
At a September 2 proceeding observed at the Falls Church building, the respondent appeared in person while the immigration judge and the government attorney participated remotely. Video participation by judges is long-standing practice in immigration court and is not itself irregular; the concern the attorneys raised is narrower — that a person is required to travel to an unfamiliar location on short notice while the other participants appear by screen, which bears on notice, access, and procedural fairness rather than on judicial impartiality.
What the regulations require when a hearing is moved
The governing rule is written notice. Under 8 CFR 1003.18(b), where the time or place of proceedings changes, the immigration court provides written notice of the new time and place to the respondent and to the government. The statutory counterpart, INA 239(a)(2), likewise requires notice of any change in the time or place of proceedings.
What neither provision contains is a universal minimum interval for a rescheduled hearing. There is no general requirement that a moved hearing be set at least ten days out, and reporting that describes one is describing a different rule.
The ten-day rule and what it actually covers
The ten-day figure comes from INA 239(b)(1). It provides that, in general, a removal hearing is not scheduled earlier than ten days after service of the Notice to Appear, so that the respondent has an opportunity to secure counsel. The respondent may waive that period in writing and request an earlier hearing.
The provision is tied to the beginning of the case — the interval between service of the charging document and the first master calendar hearing. It does not establish a floor for every subsequent rescheduling. Treating it as one overstates the protection that exists, which in turn understates how much weight the written-notice requirement is carrying on its own.
In absentia removal orders
Under INA 240(b)(5)(A), where a respondent does not appear at a removal hearing after written notice was provided, the immigration judge may order removal in absentia if the government establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that notice was given and that the respondent is removable.
An in absentia order carries direct consequences: it becomes the basis for arrest and removal, and it also triggers separate statutory bars on certain forms of relief for a period of years. This is why the sufficiency of notice is not a formality — it is the fact on which the order depends.
At the September 2 proceeding described in the reporting, the immigration judge entered removal orders against several people who did not appear.
What the statute provides when notice was not received
The statute distinguishes two routes to reopening an in absentia order, and the difference between them is the deadline.
Ground | Time limit |
|---|---|
Exceptional circumstances — INA 240(b)(5)(C)(i) | 180 days from the date of the order |
Notice was not received in accordance with INA 239(a) — INA 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) | May be filed at any time |
The second route is the one the reported situations implicate. Where a respondent did not receive notice of the changed time or place in the manner the statute requires, the motion to reopen is not subject to the 180-day limit. Filing such a motion also stays removal while it is pending.
The practical difficulty is evidentiary rather than legal: establishing non-receipt of a mailed notice is harder than establishing that a deadline was missed, and the record of what was sent and where sits with the court.
The two locations
Falls Church is the headquarters building of the Executive Office for Immigration Review and of the Board of Immigration Appeals. It contains a courtroom used for the Board's infrequent oral arguments and has functioned as an adjudication center for remote hearings; it was not publicly listed as a regular location for in-person immigration court hearings.
The Washington, D.C. address, Federal Center Plaza at 400 C St SW, was likewise not listed as an EOIR facility when the first notices went out, and NPR reported that the building is occupied by FEMA. The Washington Post subsequently reported that a conference center at FEMA headquarters is being converted for immigration hearings, with DHS using the space alongside the Justice Department, and that staff were told by internal email not to access the area. That reporting resolves part of what was initially unexplained: the location exists and is being prepared, even though EOIR has not described it as a new immigration court.
Why additional space is being sought
The immigration court backlog stands at roughly 3.5 million pending cases, down from about 4 million, and the administration has made reducing it an explicit objective. EOIR has said that as it adds immigration judges it will keep adjusting schedules and opening hearing locations as needed.
NPR reported an accelerated search by the General Services Administration for additional EOIR space by December, and that one public request for lease proposals identified 18 potential locations and called for space capable of accommodating at least ten courtrooms. No new building or converted lease has been publicly announced.
How a hearing date and location can be verified
EOIR's automated case information system reports the date, time, and location of the next hearing by A-Number, online and by telephone. Under EOIR's own rules the automated data is informational and the written notice mailed by the court remains the governing document — which is precisely the tension in the reported cases, where the mailed notice is what is said to be missing or late. Where the automated record and the paper notice diverge, the question is resolved through the court handling the case. The mechanics of both channels are set out in the guide to checking an immigration court date.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a minimum notice period before a rescheduled immigration hearing?
Federal regulations require written notice of a new time or place under 8 CFR 1003.18(b), but they do not set a general minimum number of days for a rescheduled hearing. The ten-day period that appears in coverage comes from INA 239(b)(1) and governs the interval between service of the Notice to Appear and the initial hearing; it may be waived in writing.
What is an in absentia removal order?
Under INA 240(b)(5)(A), where a respondent does not appear after written notice was provided, the immigration judge may order removal in the person's absence, provided the government establishes notice and removability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. The order becomes the basis for arrest and removal and triggers separate statutory bars on certain forms of relief.
What happens if the notice of a changed hearing location never arrived?
The statute provides a separate route to reopening. Under INA 240(b)(5)(C)(ii), a motion to reopen an in absentia order on the ground that notice was not received in accordance with INA 239(a) may be filed at any time, without the 180-day limit that applies to motions based on exceptional circumstances. Filing the motion stays removal while it is pending.
Are the Falls Church and Washington locations immigration courts?
Neither was publicly listed by EOIR as a regular location for in-person immigration court hearings when the first notices were sent. Falls Church is the EOIR and Board of Immigration Appeals headquarters and has been used for remote hearings and infrequent Board oral arguments. The Washington location sits in a building occupied by FEMA; The Washington Post reported that a conference center there is being prepared for hearings.
Does a judge appearing by video make a hearing improper?
Video participation by immigration judges is long-standing practice and is not by itself irregular. The concern raised by the attorneys interviewed is narrower and concerns notice and access — that a respondent is required to appear in person at an unfamiliar location on short notice while the judge and the government attorney participate remotely.
How many cases are pending in immigration court?
The pending caseload stands at roughly 3.5 million, down from about 4 million. Reducing the backlog is an explicit objective of the administration, and EOIR has said it will continue adding judges and opening hearing locations as needed.
Official sources
Resource | What it covers |
|---|---|
Date, time, and location of the next hearing by A-Number | |
Official announcements of new, relocated, and closed immigration courts |
The reporting described above was published by NPR on September 4, 2026 and by The Washington Post on September 5, 2026.
This material is informational, current as of September 7, 2026, and is not legal advice. The consequences of missing a removal hearing are severe and the deadlines for challenging an in absentia order depend on the ground asserted; a specific case is assessed with a licensed immigration attorney.