"It's frustrating for both the clients as well as the attorneys, because the number of cases keeps increasing but the number of judges doesn't," he said.
As a result, Sandoval said, cases can drag on for years. He cited a Russian client who first appeared in Los Angeles Immigration Court in 2002 and whose case still has not been resolved. Now, he said, a recent appellate court decision may derail her chances of becoming a legal resident.
Beverly Hills attorney Ed Pilot said he has a Nigerian asylum case that has been going on since 1999. The case was about to finish in early 2007 when the assigned judge retired. Pilot said his client has not had a hearing since and is not scheduled to appear in court until December.
"It's sort of like an athlete who has put on his game face and is in game mode, all for naught," he said.
When another judge, Gembacz, retired, he was handling a workload of more than 1,600 active cases. Despite time pressures, Gembacz said, he let people tell their stories -- even if it took longer than necessary.
"They have waited two, three, four years," he said. "It's only fair to give them the time."
But some judges are unable to spend that much time on individual cases, leading appellate courts to send them back for more thorough review.
"There are no doubt many conscientious, dedicated and thorough immigration courts across the country," one federal appellate judge wrote in a 2006 asylum case. "Unfortunately, their hard work is overshadowed by the significantly increasing rate at which adjudication lacking in reason, logic and effort from other immigration courts is reaching the federal circuits."
To manage the growing caseload, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts nationwide, uses videoconferencing, sets timelines for judges to complete cases and tries to hire judges where needed. The budget for the agency has increased from $147 million in 2000 to $227 million last year, but more is always needed, said spokeswoman Susan Eastwood.
"We are a federal agency, and Congress controls our money," she said. "We ask for money, but we don't always get what we want."
Nevertheless, Eastwood said she was confident that the judges would be able to handle any further increased caseload.
