A federal immigration judge in New York was fired in May after rapid juvenile immigration hearings where more than a dozen migrant children were ordered deported before lunch, a newly detailed account of rushed child deportation hearings shows.
Judge Jem Sponzo handled the cases at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, where unaccompanied minors appeared through virtual hearings. Many of the children were pursuing asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile status, two legal protections that can help minors avoid deportation when they face danger, abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
Judge Removed After Juvenile Hearings
Sponzo was removed one day after a May hearing in which she ordered more than a dozen young people deported before lunch. Weeks earlier, she ordered about a dozen teenagers removed in less than an hour during another juvenile session.
The children included migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Ecuador, Bangladesh, and other countries. Some appeared with attorneys, while others reportedly joined the hearings without full legal representation.
The hearings were held virtually. Children appeared on screens from remote locations rather than sitting in a traditional courtroom.
That format can make immigration court harder for minors to follow. Children in removal proceedings often face legal terms they do not understand and deadlines they cannot manage alone.
Fast Dockets Draw Legal Pushback
The Justice Department has said immigration courts must complete cases in a timely way. Officials argue that long delays can hurt people with valid claims and slow the removal of those who do not qualify for relief.
Attorneys representing children say the recent pace has changed sharply. Some juvenile dockets have moved through dozens of cases in one session, with deadlines sometimes set only two or three weeks away.
The department has denied that officials tell immigration judges how to rule in individual cases. It says judges remain responsible for setting deadlines and deciding the cases before them.
Former immigration judges and legal advocates say the pressure is still clear. They point to firings, new case priorities, and rapid scheduling as signs that judges are being pressured to close cases more quickly.
Children’s Immigration Cases Carry Special Rules
Federal immigration policy has long recognized that children’s cases require extra care. Court guidance on children’s cases requiring care says judges should understand child-sensitive procedures and the unique needs of minors in immigration court.
The guidance also says immigration judges should help unrepresented children access legal service lists. It notes that legal representation is especially important because children are vulnerable and may not understand the process.
Juvenile dockets were created to keep children’s cases separate from adult cases. The stated goal was to handle them with procedures better suited to minors.
That standard is now central to the dispute. Lawyers say fast removals can weaken protections that exist because children are not expected to defend themselves like adults.
SIJ Claims Face Long Delays
Many children in these proceedings seek Special Immigrant Juvenile status. The protection applies to certain young immigrants who need juvenile court protection because of parental abuse, abandonment, neglect, or a similar state law basis.
The process usually starts in state court. A judge must find that reunification with one or both parents is not viable and that return to the child’s home country is not in the child’s best interest.
After that, the child files a petition with immigration authorities. Federal guidance says SIJ classification can apply to children who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected.
Approval does not always lead to immediate permanent residence. Visa limits have created long waits, leaving many children in legal limbo even after their petitions are approved.
Backlog Creates Deportation Risk
The backlog has become a key pressure point in court. Some judges previously delayed removal proceedings while children waited for SIJ petitions or related immigration steps.
Recent rulings have treated pending SIJ relief as too uncertain when a visa is not immediately available. That interpretation can leave children exposed to deportation even after a state court finds they should not be returned.
Advocates say that creates a serious contradiction. A child may qualify for protection but still face removal because the final immigration step is delayed by the system itself.
Government officials argue that courts cannot let cases remain open indefinitely. They say unresolved dockets weaken public confidence and slow decisions for everyone.
Lawyers Say Children Need More Time
Legal representation remains one of the biggest factors in children’s immigration cases. A lawyer can identify asylum claims, file SIJ paperwork, request more time, and explain the consequences of removal or voluntary departure.
Many children still appear without lawyers. Immigration court is civil, not criminal, so the government does not automatically provide an attorney to people who cannot afford one.
That gap can change the outcome. A child without counsel may miss a deadline, fail to request relief, or agree to leave without understanding every consequence.
Advocates said funding cuts to legal aid have worsened the problem. Nonprofits cannot represent every child on crowded dockets, especially when hearing dates move quickly.
Federal Custody Adds Pressure
Unaccompanied children are often placed in federal care after they are referred by border authorities. Federal officials then review potential sponsors, often parents, relatives, or trusted adults already in the United States.
Sponsor checks are meant to protect children from trafficking and unsafe placements. Federal program materials on children referred by DHS show how minors enter the custody system before release decisions are made.
Lawyers said some children have remained in shelters for months while sponsor reviews continue. Longer custody can make it harder to collect records, contact relatives, and prepare for hearings.
There is also a timing risk. If a teenager turns 18 while in custody, they can be transferred to adult immigration detention.
Border Crackdown Reaches Juvenile Cases
The child deportation cases are part of a wider immigration enforcement push. President Donald Trump has made mass removal a central goal of his second term.
The administration has restricted asylum access, shut down some humanitarian screening programs, and moved to reduce legal pathways for migrants at the southern border. Officials say the measures are needed to restore order and enforce federal law.
The number of unaccompanied children in federal custody has reportedly dropped since late 2024. That decline has been linked partly to tighter border controls and fewer arrivals.
Still, attorneys say the children already inside the system remain at risk. They argue that falling arrival numbers should make careful hearings easier, not harder.
Fired Judges Intensify Court Scrutiny
Sponzo was not the only judge removed from the New York immigration court. Another judge at 26 Federal Plaza was also fired the same day after reportedly resisting government motions in some asylum cases.
The firings have sharpened concerns about judicial independence. Immigration judges work within the Justice Department, not the independent federal court system.
That structure gives the executive branch broad control over staffing, policy, and docket management. Critics say that makes immigration courts vulnerable to political pressure.
Officials have said immigration judges still decide cases independently. They also maintain that case speed does not remove the special consideration required for children.
The Justice Department continues to defend faster immigration court processing as necessary to reduce delays and enforce removal orders. Lawyers for children say rushed hearings can send minors out of the country before their claims are fully reviewed.
Some children facing removal may still appeal, seek continuances, or pursue pending humanitarian applications. Others may be ordered to depart voluntarily or face deportation orders if they miss court or lose their cases.
The central dispute now is whether child immigration cases can move quickly while still protecting due process. For unaccompanied minors, the answer may decide whether they stay in the United States long enough for their legal claims to be heard.
