The guidance about recording bond hearings is likewise substantially redacted, leaving only the statement that certain hearings must be recorded under federal court authority.

Another big issue with these slides is specifically what they redacted: most of the info on due process. The bond materials ask when and to what extent an IJ should allow testimony rather than rely on statements or attorney proffers. The operative guidance is redacted under Exemption 5.

I also noticed from the agenda that the "Exam" for this group didn't test on most of what they were taught. The exam was on Monday, May 11. The training on case management, motions, master-calendar hearings, individual hearings, and oral decisions is all after.

Not to bury the lede, but there's also some pretty explicit bias in these slides. One slide says DV and gang claims involving nongovernmental actors generally don't qualify for asylum and that few such claims should meet the credible-fear standard. It also recites a "complete helplessness" standard

There's also an outdated slide on domestic violence and asylum. The agenda placed seven major policy memoranda into one 60-minute session, including PM 25-34. That's clearly not enough time to absorb seven detailed and lengthy policy memos. But PM 25-34 was already outdated by May 2026.

Another slide that's missing critical nuance is the in absentia removal order slide. Before ordering removal, the IJ must determine that DHS established both: removability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence; and sufficient notice of the hearing and the consequences of nonappearance.

This next one is real frustrating given their current position on bond eligibility: the materials conflate "applicant for admission" with "arriving alien." Those are not synonyms.

Same is true for a slide telling IJs that they had authority to impose monetary sanctions for misconduct. The statute contains an authorization contingent on regulations. But no implementing mechanism existed.

Another false slide discusses expedited removal and describes a policy as being active when it was at that time enjoined. In May 2026 this was 100% false.

There's more. The returning-LPR slide is flatly wrong. It says: “If an LPR is abroad ‘for a continuous period in excess of 180 days,’ he will not be admitted as a returning LPR.” That is totally false.

This one omits CAT (convention against torture relief) as well. Individuals in asylum-only and withholding-only proceedings (i.e. people who pass a reasonable fear screening) are absolutely eligible for CAT relief.

Another bad slide that I mentioned this morning: this absolutely misstates what people in "asylum-only" proceedings are eligible for. It omits CAT. and the asylum-only statement omits statutory withholding.

First, as I pointed out in my thread this morning, several times the slides get the "burden of proof" wrong. Most clearly, they state the wrong burden of proof for what an arriving alien must prove to justify admission. There are at least 3 problems with this slide.

(by the way, it's possible that I missed quite a lot. It's 564 pages of powerpoint slides. You might find other stuff in here that's accurate). www.dropbox.com/preview/Publ...

The internal materials also confirm that OCIJ provides decision banks, oral-decision addenda, scripts, and worksheets. Yes, templates can help. But combined with abbreviated training and pressure for speed, they also create a serious risk of boilerplate adjudication.

New IJs are told at their training that they generally serve a two-year trial period, have limited appeal rights if removed, and may be terminated for performance or conduct. The fact sheet omits that employment context, even though it matters to decisional independence.

One slide said asylum-only applicants are entitled only to asylum, and withholding-only applicants only to withholding. A later deck correctly includes withholding and/or CAT deferral in both. The training contradicts itself about the court’s jurisdiction which, it turns out, is pretty important.

The fact sheet touts weekly legal updates and an “up-to-date” law library. Yet a core training slide told judges that an arriving alien’s standard was “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The INA says “clearly and beyond doubt.”

Another thing that stands out. The fact sheet calls the instruction “detailed.” But the agenda placed seven policy memoranda into one 60-minute session, about eight minutes per memo, before accounting for questions or discussion.

First "three weeks"? Not really. It was 12 weekdays, May 4–19. The final day was transportation, investiture rehearsal, and the ceremony, not classroom instruction. It was three calendar weeks, not three full weeks of “formal, intensive classroom training.”

No agents are available! If you call the 1-800 number today, it's three-hour wait. And every few minutes it says to go to their website and use the chatbot to get the answers you need.

If you try to get help from the chat bot on the USCIS website, you now have to first answer questions about why you haven't applied for the Trump Gold Card. The only way out of the loop is to click "Connect to Live Agent," but that's not the end of it...

No you’re not reading that wrong. They aren’t required to provide the terms on an Asylum Cooperative Agreement to decide that you are subject to the terms of an Asylum Cooperative Agreement even tho the reg requires the IJ to determine whether you’re subject to the terms of the Agreement.

AI slop comes to OCAHO, a tiny, typically opaque agency within the Department of Justice that fines employers for unlawful employment, I-9 violations, etc. This document is a "notice of case assignment," which isn't normally published. But this one addresses AI. www.justice.gov/eoir/meet-ad...

In March 2025, the BIA said if you leave any field on your I-589 form blank, your application is "abandoned." Of course that decision, Matter of CARR, also says they have to give you a chance to "cure." But IJs aren't doing that. Message received. Abandonments go up. www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1...

Another thing that accounts for the lowering grant rate is the increase of "Abandonment" under several new BIA decisions that pull the rug on bona fide asylum seekers. Average since Jan '17 is 18%. But average since Jan 2024 is 33%. And since December, it's 39%. Here are a few of those decisions

This visualization is the asylum grant/denial/withdrawal rate since the start of the Trump administration. They've got the grant rate down to 2% since last summer. The average before that was about 20% pretty consistentlyover Trump I and Biden. www.mobilepathways.org/dashboards/a...

What I mean is - the BIA has been saying for years that IJs have to comply with the regulations, even when they are ultra vires. It's been an actual problem. Matter of C-I-G-M- is just the most recent example. That case is about denying people asylum under "Asylum Cooperative Agreements."

In yesterday's BIA decision about deporting children, the BIA decided that even though an agency regulation allows discretionary administrative closure, an IJ can't follow a regulation when it conflicts with the underlying statute. That is a new position for the BIA. www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1...

“Your Honor. All I ask is that whatever the court thinks is reasonable and fair to stop me from this nonsense."