A volunteer observer recently began documenting what it looks like to attend detained immigration court hearings. Her goal was simple: enter the space as a member of the public and observe. Immigration courts are legally public proceedings, with some exceptions, yet very few people bear witness to them.
What follows is drawn directly from their field observations. These notes are not a legal analysis. They are a description of the environment, patterns, and dynamics they repeatedly encountered while observing hearings conducted remotely through Webexinside detention facilities.
Together, they offer a rare window into how detained deportation proceedings unfold in real time.
Entering the Detained Immigration Courtroom via Webex
To enter a detained immigration courtroom, observers have two options: observe remotely via the Webex platform or attend in person.
Joining a remote hearing can be daunting, confusing, and challenging to navigate.
Observers must go to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) website, scroll to the chosen Immigration Court, select a judge’s courtroom, and choose whether to enter through a browser or download the Webex app. Upon entering as a guest, a long warning from the government appears, stating the rules that observers and all in attendance must abide by, that the system may be monitored and recorded, and that observers’ recording is prohibited.
In the early morning, she enters multiple judges’ virtual waiting rooms and watches the lobby counters. If no one is waiting in the virtual room, she leaves and checks another room. Admission is inconsistent — sometimes immediate, sometimes delayed, sometimes never granted at all.
Once admitted, the courtroom appears as a grid of boxes on a screen: the immigration judge, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) Government attorney, the detained individual, and, if they have counsel, the immigration attorney. Attorneys representing detained people usually keep their cameras off until their case is called. While the government attorney prosecuting non-citizens in removal proceedings sometimes appears in person or on video, have their camera on, and they have also appeared by phone.
Family members or members of the public rarely appear.
In most hearings they attended, they were the only observer present.
Despite immigration courts being “public,” judges at times asked the observer to identify themselves, asked what they were trying to observe, and if they let the court know that they were going to be observing. The observer described hearing a firm tone and feeling that theirpresence was unwelcome. On those occasions, the observer exited the virtual courtroom to avoid conflict.
The process of entering is not only technical; it is intimidating. The result is a courtroom that is legally open yet practically difficult to access. Most detained immigration court proceedings occur without public witnesses.
Webex Courtroom Aesthetics
Hearings are held via the Webex platform. Some are fully remote; others are hybrid.
In fully remote hearings, detained individuals appear in what looks like a small room inside a detention facility: one table, two chairs, and a guard to the side, who is often not visible. When the judge calls a case, a guard escorts the next person into the room. The physical setting is sparse and controlled.
In hybrid hearings, the judge and detained individuals are in a traditional courtroom co-located inside a detention facility. A bench sits at the front for the judge. Guards control a locked door. Behind a short barrier, detained men wait on benches until their cases are called.
The courtroom exists inside the detention center. The individuals present are being held indefinitely and cannot leave. Movement in and out of the room is orchestrated by guards at the judge’s request.
Gender and Demographics
Every detained hearing they observed involved men.
They were predominantly men of color, with a majority appearing Latino. They wore detention jumpsuits in different colors and were escorted by guards. They were rarely referred to by name. Instead, they were identified by A-numbers.
Most of the men were Spanish-speaking and required translation, which the court provided. A few spoke English.
In most hearings, the detained individuals were not active participants beyond confirming they could hear the judge and allowing their attorney to represent them. Some said “thank you” at the end. The men moved through the hearings quietly.
Their observation was not only demographic but behavioral: the individuals most affected by the hearing often spoke the least.
Courtroom Silence
DHS OPLA Silence
Government attorneys — DHS OPLA — were often minimally engaged. At times, they simply stated they had “nothing to add” when asked about their position. Other times, they remained silent.
In criminal court, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. While in immigration court, for the most part, it rests with the person in detention. As a result, the immigration attorney representing the person in detention does most of the speaking.
Their description was stark: individuals are being prosecuted without necessarily hearing the prosecution speak.
The Public Silence
Although hearings are technically public, she observed almost no family members or outside observers present. Online access is unreliable and requires navigating challenging technological systems; in-person access requires navigating detention facilities located in remote areas with strict guidelines and rules that make it increasingly difficult to gain access into
They described waiting for nearly an hour at times in virtual lobbies without being admitted. In person, identification and physical barriers further restrict access.
What happens inside the courtroom remains largely unseen, even though the consequences extend far beyond it.
Deportations to Safe Third Countries
They observed cases where asylum-seeking individuals were ordered removed to countries they were not from under “safe third country” agreements.
According to the American Immigration Council, Safe Third Country (STC) Agreements refer to a specific type of agreement under U.S. law that allows the government to send people to other countries for the ostensible purpose of allowing them to seek asylum there.
When some men in detained immigration court proceedings became aware that they might be sent to a “safe third country,” they stated they were not from the country mentioned and asked to be returned to their home countries instead. Others requested voluntary departure. Judges often denied voluntary departure and issued a deportation instead.
A few detainees asked that deportation happen as quickly as possible. When this occurred, judges at times responded that the timeline is controlled by their deportation officers, not the court.
Their impression was that individuals were navigating extremely complicated, life-changing proceedings under significant pressure created by detention itself.
Pro Se or Missing Attorneys
They witnessed hearings in which detained individuals represented themselves or in which attorneys failed to appear. In immigration proceedings, people have the right to be represented by an attorney, but they do not have the right to one at the governments expense if they cannot afford one.
In most proceedings in which people in hearings did not have an attorney, were pro se, or whose attorney failed to appear, the hearing continued. Individuals answered questions without knowing whether their responses would help or harm their case. Some referenced long-term residence in the US, family in the United States, or fear of return, but could not present what the court would consider sufficient evidence.
Others did not know the details of their past criminal history, which could significantly affect their eligibility for immigration relief.
The absence of legal representation amplified the imbalance she already observed.
Relationship Between Judges, Government Attorneys, and Guards
They repeatedly noted familiarity between immigration judges, government attorneys, and facility guards. They greeted one another warmly and expressed appreciation — “nice to see you,” “thanks for being helpful.”
The tone toward detained individuals was formal and procedural.
Their observation was not accusatory; it was descriptive. One group occupied the courtroom as colleagues. The other entered briefly as cases.
Voluntary Departure
Several detainees asked judges directly about voluntary departure. They requested it because they wanted to be released from detention as soon as possible, even if that meant being expelled from the US, or avoid deportation to unfamiliar countries.
Most requests were denied.
The distinction between voluntary departure and a removal order carries serious legal consequences, yet these decisions occurred within short hearings, sometimes initiated by confused or desperate detainees speaking for themselves.
A Public Space Few People Witness
Across all her observations, one pattern remained constant: the absence of people un-involded with the cases. She was almost always the only observer.
Deportation hearings — proceedings that determine where a person will live, whether families remain together, and whether someone returns to danger — unfolded with little public presence. The space was technically public, yet structured in ways that made witnessing rare. Court observation itself is a form of democratic participation. Court watching programs exist precisely because public presence changes how systems operate. When people sit in courtrooms — virtual or physical — they make proceedings visible. They create records and attest to others about how the legal system is operating day to day. Court watchers remind institutions that the public is watching.
Court watching, neighborhood defense networks, mutual aid projects, and community-based organizing all ways you can show up in your community to support people navigating detention and deportation. Subscribe to our newsletter for updates on how you can get involved with CWLA to show solidarity that is grounded in accompaniment, witnessing, and collective care.
