Researchers observed immigration proceedings in Los Angeles and Santa Ana where missed court appearances and third-country removal requests affected whether people seeking asylum could have their cases fully heard.
A Venezuelan asylum seeker appeared before an immigration judge in Los Angeles facing the possibility of being sent to Ecuador, a country that was not their home.
Their attorney presented evidence about the dangers LGBTQI+ Venezuelans could face there.
The judge nevertheless ordered the person removed to Ecuador, according to researchers who observed the proceeding.
It is one of several cases documented in a new national study that brings a familiar immigration controversy closer to home: People seeking protection in the United States can face deportation orders before a judge fully hears why they fled their countries.
The study, Dismantling Due Process, was produced by Justice in View, a research initiative that observed 3,585 immigration court hearings nationwide between January and August 2026.
Its findings include firsthand observations in Los Angeles and Santa Ana, showing how practices already documented nationally are unfolding in Southern California courtrooms.
In Los Angeles, an asylum case shifted to another country
The Venezuelan asylum seeker’s case illustrates how complicated immigration proceedings can become before a judge reaches the person’s original request for protection.
Instead of deciding whether the person qualified for asylum in the United States, the court considered whether they could be removed to Ecuador under a third-country arrangement.
These arrangements, called Asylum Cooperative Agreements, can allow the government to seek removal to participating countries under applicable legal requirements.
That can leave an asylum seeker having to address a different question: Would they be safe in a country where they may never have lived?
The researchers reported that the judge ordered removal to Ecuador despite the evidence submitted by the attorney.
The study does not say whether that person was ultimately deported. A removal order and a completed deportation are not the same thing.
The legal questions surrounding these transfers have also reached federal appeals courts. This is an issue we have looked at in a ruling requiring meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise safety concerns before certain third-country deportations.
In Santa Ana, a client was afraid to appear in court
Another courtroom observation, this time in Santa Ana, shows a different problem.
An attorney appeared before an immigration judge without the client, who was afraid to attend the hearing.
The judge required the person’s physical presence and warned that failure to appear could lead to a deportation order.
The client did not arrive, the researchers reported.
For an immigrant with a pending case, that situation can create a frightening dilemma. Missing court may have serious consequences, yet some people fear being detained when they appear.
The concern is not limited to Orange County.
In an earlier report, we took a dive into immigration enforcement at California courthouses and the limits of state protections. Those protections concern California state courts and should not be confused with the separate federal immigration court system.
Nationally, the Justice in View report found that the rate of removal orders issued when people failed to appear rose from 8.7% in February 2025 to 23.9% in June 2026.
Researchers identified courthouse arrests, changing hearing requirements and administrative uncertainty as possible contributors.
The data do not establish how many appearances were caused by fear of detention, or whether Southern California experienced the same increase.
The researchers also documented a different response in West Los Angeles.
A Department of Homeland Security attorney asked the court to end an asylum proceeding under a third-country agreement.
Rather than rule immediately, the judge allowed the matter to continue, noting that another hearing was scheduled and the person might obtain an attorney.
The report documents situations where procedural decisions limited opportunities for asylum claims to be heard. But it also shows that judges exercised discretion differently.
In Santa Ana, for example, another judge explained that deciding how the government would carry out a removal to Ecuador was outside the court’s responsibility.
Together, the observations reveal differences in how courts handled government requests and what questions judges considered within their authority.
The Justice in View project spent approximately 1,300 hours observing 3,585 hearings across 25 immigration courts in 13 states and Puerto Rico.
The researchers identified several ways asylum cases can move toward removal without a full hearing on the underlying claim.
Some people received removal orders after missing court. Others faced early decisions on their asylum applications or government requests to send them to third countries.
The study also examined how detention and bond decisions can affect people’s ability to pursue their cases.
Its authors argue that these practices are increasingly shifting immigration courts away from deciding asylum claims on their merits.
That is the researchers’ interpretation of the evidence. Federal immigration law also authorizes certain procedural decisions and removal mechanisms, subject to applicable legal requirements and judicial review.
The study’s observations were not a random, nationally representative sample. Its local cases establish that researchers witnessed these practices in Los Angeles and Santa Ana, not how often they occur in every courtroom.
For additional context, read Southern California immigration arrests and deportations documented through federal records.
What families with immigration court dates should know
For people awaiting an immigration hearing, the most important practical lesson is that court procedures can affect the outcome of a case even before the underlying asylum claim is decided.
- Check hearing information: The Executive Office for Immigration Review provides immigration court information and access to its automated case information system.
- Do not assume a hearing is optional: Missing a required appearance can result in a removal order. Questions about attendance, remote appearances or rescheduling should be addressed with the court and a qualified legal representative.
- Ask about legal representation: An immigration attorney or DOJ-accredited representative can explain the requirements and options in an individual case. The DOJ’s legal representation resources provide information about finding assistance.
The new study does not establish how many asylum seekers across Los Angeles or Orange County have experienced these outcomes.
But it documents something important for local families: The courtroom procedures shaping the national immigration debate are also being used in Southern California.
And sometimes, what happens before a full asylum hearing can be just as consequential as the hearing itself.
