MIAMI (AP) — A U.S. Army Reserve lawyer detailed as a federal immigration judge has been fired barely a month into the job after granting asylum at a high rate out of step with the Trump administration’s mass deportation goals, The Associated Press has learned.
Christopher Day began hearing cases in late October as a temporary judge at the immigration court in Annandale, Virginia. He was fired around Dec. 2, the National Association of Immigration Judges confirmed.
It’s unclear why Day was fired. Day did not comment when contacted by the AP, and a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to discuss personnel matters. But federal data from November shows he ruled on asylum cases in ways at odds with the Trump administration’s stated goals.
Of the 11 cases he concluded in November, he granted asylum or some other type of relief allowing the migrant to remain in the United States a total of six times, according to federal data.
Such favorable outcomes for migrants have become increasingly rare as the Trump administration seeks to slash a massive backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases by radically overhauling the nation’s immigration courts. As part of that drive, the Trump administration has fired almost 100 judges viewed as too liberal.
In response to the growing controversy around asylum cases, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in September approved sending dozens of military lawyers to hear these cases. The goal, advocacy groups say, is to redefine the role of judges into a rubber stamp for deportations.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association has criticized the shift, arguing that military personnel lack the expertise needed for immigration law, raising concerns about fairness in judicial processes.
Although only a small number of military judges have been transitioned into these roles, the results have been startling, with reports indicating that over 90% of cases handled under this new approach resulted in orders for removal or self-deportation.
While many officials defend the hiring of military personnel, the firing of Day after just five weeks suggests a troubling trend for the future of fair immigration judiciary, especially as tensions rise over ideological motivations in hiring and firing practices.
Day’s dismissal raises questions regarding the independence of judges in immigration court and reflects the intense pressures faced by those in the judicial system during an administration focused heavily on stringent immigration policy.
