February 21, 2026 – SUNTV Global Channel
In a development raising fresh concerns over political influence in America’s immigration courts, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has quietly dismissed a New York‑based immigration judge known for an unusually high rate of asylum approvals.
Judge Vivienne Gordon‑Uruakpa, a Black female jurist married to a Nigerian‑American, was removed from her post last September — a decision that was not publicly announced and only came to light after her name vanished from the roster of judges at the downtown Manhattan immigration court where she served.
Sources familiar with the situation say the move followed scrutiny of Gordon‑Uruakpa’s case record, which showed she granted asylum in 97% of cases, one of the highest approval rates in the state and far above the national average. Her removal has fueled deep concern among immigrant advocates, legal experts, and civil liberties organizations about transparency and fairness in the immigration adjudication system.
When reached for comment, the Justice Department declined to explain the judge’s sudden exit, stating only that the court’s online listing “is up to date,” without addressing the reasons behind her dismissal.
Gordon‑Uruakpa’s departure is occurring against the backdrop of what critics describe as a broader shake‑up of the immigration judiciary under Attorney General Pam Bondi, who holds the authority to appoint and remove immigration judges. Unlike Article III federal judges, immigration judges serve at the pleasure of the DOJ and are not shielded by lifetime tenure or independent civil‑service protections.
According to immigration court observers, more than 100 immigration judges have been removed during the current administration, as deportation figures rise and enforcement policies grow more stringent. Data from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows that nearly 80% of asylum seekers were deported during the most recent quarter — a stark contrast to previous years when approval rates and protections were higher.
Born and educated in New York, Gordon‑Uruakpa studied at Fordham University before earning her law degree at Howard University School of Law. Her years of work in legal aid and criminal defense, supporters say, informed a compassionate approach to asylum cases — a stance that appears increasingly at odds with the direction of national immigration policy.
Her removal has reignited debates over the role of individual judges in determining asylum outcomes, with critics warning that a migrant’s fate is becoming more dependent on “which judge they draw” rather than an objective review of their case.
The shift in leadership at the Manhattan immigration court has also been highlighted by the elevation of Judge John Burns, long regarded as one of the strictest adjudicators on asylum claims, to the position of Acting Assistant Chief Judge earlier this year — a move analysts view as signaling a tougher enforcement posture.
As questions mount over due process and judicial independence in immigration courts, the DOJ continues to withhold specific explanations for Gordon‑Uruakpa’s removal — leaving advocates to call for greater transparency and protections for judges who apply the law without fear or favor.
