The Brief

The Trump administration has reshaped a lesser-known corner of the Justice Department to set immigration policy and escalate mass detentions and deportations.

An administrative court known as the Board of Immigration Appeals has published a body of immigration case law that significantly narrows the due process and relief from deportation available for immigrants, an NPR analysis of its decisions shows.

The White House has done that by shrinking the size of the board by nearly half — and stacking the remaining slate of 15 judges with President Donald Trump's appointees.

Last year, their decisions backed Department of Homeland Security lawyers in 97% of publicly posted cases; that's at least 30 percentage points higher than the average from the last 16 years.

The board has made it harder for immigration courts to offer immigrants bond in lieu of detention. It's made it easier to deport migrants to countries other than their own. And a new proposed regulation would make it harder for people to appeal their immigration decisions at all.

The board did this last year while quickly pumping out 70 published decisions, a record number of precedent-setting cases.

"The board has an impact on immigration law that is much, much bigger than the number of people that are on it," said Andrea Sáenz, a former board judge appointed by former President Joe Biden and terminated by Trump last year. "That's because they have this ability to set immigration precedents and rules for the whole country."

Immigration courts are housed within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, at the Justice Department and are not a part of the independent judiciary.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys appear before these courts to make their arguments about why someone should be removed from the country. Immigrants, meanwhile, appear before these courts to make their case about why they should be allowed to stay in the U.S.

The point of the Board of Immigration Appeals, former members and immigration attorneys said, is to catch mistakes made by immigration judges. After an immigration judge issues a decision, both the immigrant and ICE have a right to appeal that decision.

"The stakes are so incredibly high in the immigration proceedings and the law is so complicated and convoluted and difficult," said Victoria Neilson, supervising attorney at the National Immigration Project at the National Lawyers Guild. "Even assuming that [immigration judges] are acting in good faith, they're going to get things wrong sometimes because the laws are changing all the time."

Former BIA judge Katharine Clark had been at the DOJ for over 15 years and joined the Board in 2023.

She worked there until she received her reduction in force notice last year.

She said she reviewed thousands of cases in her role. These reviews were meant to catch overlooked details in an immigrant's case or testimony that could make the difference between approving or denying a deportation order.

"We lose an absolutely crucial method of catching errors by immigration judges who are absolutely flooded with cases," Clark said about the administration's gutting of the board. "In this situation, mistakes are essentially inevitable."

A DOJ spokesperson, who provided a statement sourced to the agency, said EOIR is "restoring integrity to the immigration adjudication system, and Board of Immigration Appeals decisions reflect straightforward interpretations of clear statutory language."

"President Trump and the Department of Justice will continue to enforce the law as it is written to defend and protect the safety and security of the American people," the spokesperson said.

"Under the leadership of Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Garry Malphrus, the BIA is now recommitted to following the law and fulfilling its core adjudicatory mission."

Trump changed the makeup of the board

Within a month of taking office, leadership in the new Trump administration moved forward with a reduction in force, cutting the number of appellate judge slots on the board from 28 to 15. The first to be dismissed were the most recent hires: those appointed by Biden.

Those had been there longer were also a part of the reduction in force or resigned soon after.

The changes in the workforce mirror a pattern seen across the federal government, especially immigration courts, where in the last year at least 100 judges were fired, and more resigned or retired. An NPR analysis last month found there are now a quarter fewer immigration judges than there were at the start of 2025.

Justice Department leaders have sent several memos and directives signaling to judges and appellate members that they want streamlined asylum and bond denials.

EOIR did not respond to a request for comment on the reduction in force. In the federal register notice announcing the reduction, the agency says a larger board wasn't more productive at reviewing more cases.

"Although many factors may have contributed to this outcome—including organizational and administrative challenges—the data demonstrate that increasing the Board's size has not brought about the hoped-for increases in productivity envisioned by prior expansions," the notice states.

Making rapid policy changes

BIA's public decisions set the precedent and tone for what immigration judges nationwide should do and how the general public should interpret immigration law and policy.

The number of such decisions has skyrocketed under Trump — as the board seeks to cement a particular interpretation of the law. An NPR analysis looked at BIA decisions over the past four administrations, going back to 2009.

It found that in 2025, the agency published 70 decisions. That is nearly as many as all of the decisions posted publicly under Biden and the single highest yearly total since 2009.

Judges that make up BIA panels reviewing appeals could consider tens of thousands of cases a year, but the vast majority are never made public.

"There are thousands and thousands of unpublished decisions that come out of the board every year that are your ordinary cases. And then normally, you'd maybe have two or three dozen precedents that are intended to explain a part of the law in more detail," said Sáenz, now with Co-Counsel NYC, a nonprofit immigration law organization. "And they're intended to be binding on the whole country and all immigration judges and [U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services] to say, this is how you actually follow this piece of the law."

ICE attorneys generally receive favorable orders in most cases against immigrants before the board, according to the data included in NPR's analysis; 2015 was the only exception, where immigrants won more cases than the administration did.

But in 2025 the government won 97% of the public cases brought before the board — a new high. In one of two cases in which the board did not side with DHS, DHS attorneys failed to appear at the initial hearing.

Already in 2026, NPR has tracked 21 decisions with DHS winning all but one of them, according to an NPR analysis of published decisions. The one case where the board ruled in favor of an immigrant involved the person withdrawing their appeal for asylum; they had already been granted another protection from deportation.

"Tangible effect on the lives of millions"

The administration "came in this time knowing we don't necessarily need to have immigration judges in place, we need to have the policy in place," said former BIA judge Homero Lopez, who was appointed by Biden and let go last year. "And the policy gets made by the board, not by the immigration judges."

Neilson, the attorney at the National Immigration Project, said recent decisions "have formed the backbone for how immigration judges" are allowed to consider asylum and bond cases.

"They've issued several decisions that make it impossible or nearly impossible for those who can seek bond from the immigration judge to even get bond," she said.

The BIA has made at least three decisions that limit whether an immigrant can be granted bond to be out of detention while their case plays out in the courts.

In one case, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the board ruled that immigration judges have to deny bond and detain noncitizens who entered the country illegally. Several district court judges have rebuked the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy. Still, EOIR leaders in January instructed immigration judges to defer to Hurtado's case as precedent and to deny bond.

Federal appellate courts are now weighing in on the matter.

"The decisions that the board has made to take away the option of getting immigration bonds for various large groups of people has been by far the most impactful thing that has happened there since I left," said Clark, the former BIA judge. "It really has had a tangible effect on the lives of millions of people."

Other BIA decisions have paved the way for the government to more easily deport people to third countries — those countries other than their home country.

Proposed rule meant to curtail further appeals

At the start of 2026, the administration started phasing in more changes. A newly proposed rule would have shortened the window for immigrants' appeals to the board from 30 days to 10, and made it easier for appeals to the BIA to be dismissed before being heard.

The rule was aimed at reducing the BIA's pending backlog, which topped 200,000 cases as of the end of last year, according to EOIR.

Five immigrant rights organizations sued the administration, successfully arguing the rule would limit due process by straining legal services in order to meet the shorter deadlines.

A federal district judge last week blocked most of the new rule from taking effect, calling it unlawful and unenforceable.

Judge Randolph Moss on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said the government offered only one reason why immigration attorneys might see a reduced workload thanks to the rule: they would "quickly lose virtually every appeal that they bring before the Board."

"Defendants' argument is like telling Habitat for Humanity that a rule limiting new home construction will help, rather than hurt, the organization because it will incur fewer costs acquiring lumber and nails," Moss wrote in his opinion.

The lawsuit is still ongoing. EOIR said it does not comment on litigation-related matters.

"If someone feels like they had their fair day in court and they just didn't meet the legal standard, people can kind of accept that," Nielson said. "But if you give up everything to follow the rules and then suddenly the rules disappear, that seems very un-American."

This story used artificial intelligence to help analyze 634 cases that were decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals from January 1, 2009 to March 18, 2026. For each case, the AI tool determined whether the panel had decided for the Department of Homeland Security or for the immigrant. NPR reporters tested and verified the accuracy of the tool's results, and an independent lawyer who manually tracked court cases for 2021 and 2015 reviewed the analysis and confirmed the results.

Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles mayor’s office says it has chosen a plan for a hotly debated road safety project on Forest Lawn Drive, but it won’t say how the plan will slow speeding cars on the deadly thoroughfare.

In a statement Friday to LAist, the mayor’s office said L.A. Mayor Karen Bass’ plan for the busy road near Griffith Park will “improve traffic, cycling and pedestrian safety, and keep traffic flowing."

The office said the plan includes adding a protected left-turn lane and protected bike lanes to the 1-mile stretch of Forest Lawn Drive and maintains the roadway's four existing lanes.

The mayor’s office did not respond to additional questions from LAist, including whether Bass’ plan will reduce speeding on the road, whether there’s a timeline for implementation and how soon the community will be informed about specifics.

A city official who spoke to LAist on condition they not be named because they weren't authorized to speak on the record confirmed that the safety design approved by the mayor includes widening portions of the road. Road widening was first proposed by a consultant for Forest Lawn Memorial Parks and Mortuaries.

Forest Lawn Memorial Parks operates a chain of cemeteries, including one in the Hollywood Hills that can only be accessed along Forest Lawn Drive. The company was a longtime opponent of a prior proposal to reduce lanes on the roadway that Bass halted in May.

City transportation officials had said the lane reduction would slow cars down and make the thoroughfare safer.

Forest Lawn Memorial Parks worked to block that plan due to concerns that it would increase traffic congestion and impede access to its Hollywood Hills cemetery.

The company spent nearly half a million dollars lobbying against the lane reduction at the state and local levels between 2025 and 2026, according to an LAist review of lobbying activity.

The exact price tag for Bass’ latest plan announced Friday is unclear.

City transportation department records obtained by LAist show a proposal to widen the road developed by a consultant for Forest Lawn Memorial Parks would cost nearly five times more than the plan to reduce lanes on Forest Lawn Drive.

City transportation staff said in an analysis that the consultant’s road widening plan would have “low” potential to slow speeding cars, according to the public records.

The L.A. Department of Transportation said in a statement that it is “coordinating with the Bureau of Engineering on advancing the Mayor's direction.”

The main goal of the Forest Lawn Drive Safety and Mobility project is to slow speeding cars on the road, and it also aims to protect bike lanes with plastic posts.

(

Kavish Harjai / LAist

)

Details of the original plan Bass halted in May

The proposal that almost went ahead before Bass halted it would have cut the number of lanes from four to three, transforming the road into two through-lanes and one center turn lane. The bumpy, cracked, pothole-ridden road would also have been resurfaced.

The goal was to slow cars and address the nearly 100 traffic collisions, including four deadly ones, the road has seen since 2013.

Brian Taylor, a research professor of urban planning and public policy at UCLA, told LAist that research on how so-called road diets improve safety is “unequivocal,” adding that there is a significant reduction in crashes and injuries when lanes are reduced.

The plan to reduce lanes came with a $618,000 price tag that would have covered the costs of repainting new lanes on the road and installing plastic posts to fortify the bike lanes. Those costs would have been covered through the city’s existing resources for road improvements, according to the city’s transportation department. 

The road has become an issue in L.A.’s tight mayoral race

The future of Forest Lawn Drive has become a touchpoint in the L.A. mayor’s race, where Bass is facing L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, whose district includes this portion of Forest Lawn Drive and whose office initiated the project in 2022.

At an August campaign event about Forest Lawn Drive, following a fatal collision on the road, Raman said one reason she’s running for mayor is so “lifesaving street safety improvements are not stymied and are not politicized.”

The road is the sole point of entry to two major cemeteries, the Hollywood Hills locations of Forest Lawn Memorial Parks and Mount Sinai Memorial Parks.

The cemeteries, neighborhood groups and state legislators opposed the lane reduction plan, citing concerns about traffic congestion, especially during funeral processions, and ease of access.

In a joint statement to LAist in August, the cemeteries praised Bass’ decision to find a new approach for the road, saying it “demonstrated responsive leadership and a willingness to get this right.” The cemeteries did not respond to LAist’s requests for a follow-up.

After the mayor paused the lane-reduction plan, the city delayed resurfacing Forest Lawn Drive.

(

Kavish Harjai / LAist

)

The one-mile stretch of road is covered with cracks, potholes and bumps.

(

Kavish Harjai / LAist

)

The state’s involvement

State legislators representing L.A. had pressed the mayor in a letter in April about the project, saying traffic lane reductions would be “disastrous to the operation of key cemeteries” in the area and calling for more review of alternatives.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that makes it more difficult to reduce lanes on Forest Lawn Drive.

Streets for All, which has advocated for reducing Forest Lawn Drive from four lanes to three, said that the original plan for the road could still move forward if Raman becomes L.A.’s next mayor.

“We will get the extra bureaucratic hurdles done and get the project in the ground anyway under Mayor [Raman],” the transportation advocacy group said in September in an Instagram post, referring to the additional steps the state legislation signed by Newsom requires.

In September, Streets for All announced its political action committee is contributing $1.2 million to get Raman elected.

The board that oversees the California High-Speed Rail Authority voted Friday to rein in Chief Executive Ian Choudri's contracting authority following a state investigation that showed consultants billed the agency $600,000 in questionable travel expenses.

The investigation by the office of inspector general for the high-speed rail project found that some consultants flew first class, hailed luxury rides and traveled to a night club, a cigar lounge and numerous restaurants, bars and residences, sometimes after hours, on taxpayers’ dime.

Investigators looked at travel expenses submitted by four consulting firms over a two-year period and found that most of the trips were unauthorized, poorly justified — at times at the agency’s top executives’ request — and that agency staff failed to sufficiently vet the requests before approving them. In some cases, agency staff didn’t even know about the trips until they received invoices.

The board on Friday voted 7-2 to strip Choudri of his sole authority to sign and manage contracts under $25 million and to require the agency’s in-house attorneys to approve or change any new or existing contracts. The board already has to vote to award any contracts over that amount.

Board chair Steve Kawa told reporters afterward that the decision “adds additional eyes and ears and authority” over issues exposed by the investigation.

“We are not just gonna sit back and ignore that we had this travel issue,” he said. “Not one dollar of California taxpayer dollars should be misused.”

“I am outraged that we would be treated like a piggy bank for these kinds of expenditures.”

Several board members slammed the consultants for the travel expenses. Lynn Schenk, who has served on the board since 2003, said the spending suggests a troubling pattern and deserves a deeper dive.

“I am outraged that we would be treated like a piggy bank for these kinds of expenditures,” she said during the board meeting. “And it says to me that there are other expenditures that are being treated this way.”

Board member Henry Perea suggested the travel payments are so egregious that the state should end its contract with the firms right away, something Gov. Gavin Newsom has also floated. However, Perea said he worried that doing so could set back the long-delayed rail project even further.

“I’d terminate these four [contracts] tomorrow or today, but I understand there’s a question of operational needs that we have with these folks,” he said.

But the board did not grill the authority’s top executives for failing to catch the behavior, even though the probe revealed that consultants told agency staff many times that they were traveling at the request of the agency’s top officers, including Choudri.

In response to the investigation, the authority paused all travel payments to the four consulting firms in question and has started reviewing their claims and training staff, executives and consultants on travel policies, said the authority’s Chief Financial Officer Jamey Matalka.

One legal consultant was paid $40,800 in travel reimbursements and an additional $86,500 in “travel time” for 30 trips between Denver and Sacramento in a year. When questioned about whether he needed to attend the meetings in person, he said Choudri had requested his presence so he did not need to justify it and that it would not be appropriate for him to question Choudri’s direction, “as other consultants in other Authority offices are learning the hard way.”

In response to the investigation, the authority paused all travel payments to the four consulting firms in question and has started reviewing their claims and training staff, executives and consultants on travel policies, said the authority’s Chief Financial Officer Jamey Matalka. The firms are: KPMG LLP, a global financial consulting firm; Nossaman LLP, a national law firm; AECOM-Fluor Joint Venture, which manages and coordinates the authority’s projects, and SYSTRA/TYPSA Joint Venture, which provides tracks and systems design.

The agency is seeking to recoup all questionable travel payments, he said Friday.

“We remain committed [and] we take full responsibility and accountability to fix if there was something broken in the system,” Choudri told the board.

Choudri also told board members that the agency has taken “disciplinary actions” against some consultants but did not clarify what they were. Choudri did not speak to reporters following the meeting.

Assembly Minority Leader Alexandra Macedo, a Visilia Republican, called for Choudri’s firing in a Thursday letter to the board. She accused him of demonstrating a “pattern of misuse of taxpayer dollars and abuse of public trust.”

“At a time when California families face unbearable financial pressures to cover essential household needs including rent, utilities and transportation, the routine approval of improper consultant expenses represents a severe breach of fiduciary responsibility,” she wrote.

‘They should all be here’

Of the four consulting firms investigated, only one sent representatives Friday.

Veronica Siranosian, an executive at AECOM-Fluor Joint Venture, told the board the company reviewed its travel invoices and found “no substantive departures from the established public processes.”

The inspector general’s investigation found nearly $380,000 in travel expenses by the company’s consultants that were not allowed under state regulations or the company’s contract with the state.

Nevertheless, another AECOM executive, Mike Burns, said the company has identified only about $1,000 in expenses it overbilled the state, including for an Uber ride, parking in a garage that charged a higher rate than surrounding buildings and a flight that was on an international carrier instead of an American airline.

Steve Kawa, chair of the board of directors of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, speaks during a special board meeting at the California Natural Resources Agency in Sacramento on Oct. 9, 2026

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

In some cases, Burns stressed, the dollar difference was small. He said the company’s consultants once took an $86 Uber ride in an electric vehicle whereas the standard policy would require an $84 Uber X instead. “It was a $2 differentiation,” he said. “There’s some nominal incidences like that.”

Schenk gasped.

“Surely you are not saying that we are sitting here for these hours going through this … for a $2 difference,” she said. “And surely you will at least acknowledge that these instances show a disregard at the very least for state and high-speed rail requirements.”

“It’s gonna take a lot of $2 differences in Uber rides to get to the $380,000 that you guys billed the state of California,” said Vice Chair Anthony Williams.

Board member Emily Cohen slammed the consulting firms that did not appear Friday.

“They should all be here. Unbelievable.”

Authority to step up training, improve policy

Matalka said the authority would implement all the fixes the inspector general’s office recommended. He said the authority would, by the end of the year, create a new travel approval form requiring more details.

By the end of March, he said, it would establish a “consistent, uniform process” for advance travel approvals, ramp up training, create a list of approved office locations for consultants, recoup misspent state funding and use AI to flag travel requests that potentially violate policies.

But much of the steps seems like “basic oversight,” Schenk said. “Why weren’t we doing this at the outset?” she asked. “What is the root cause?”

Matalka said some questionable travel requests slipped through the cracks because staff did not review them deep enough.

“Training needs to be done so that we make sure you are not just looking at the labor hours, you are not just looking at the lodging rate,” he said. “You need to actually Google the address, look at the timestamp, look at some of the very small print on the fare class.”

The authority frequently approved expenses with vague justifications, such as “typical M-F week” trips, and approved travel at the request of executives without asking why. One consultant flew to California from Denver 20 times during the two-year period to “meet with the executive team” or attend executive meetings, without explaining why the meetings couldn’t have been remote, the investigation says.

The high-speed rail project is already long delayed and over its projected budget: In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion bond to build a high-speed rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles by 2020 for an estimated $45 billion. The project is now estimated to cost between $126 billion and $231 billion, with a full buildout expected by 2040, according to the authority’s latest business plan. Current plans call for building a first leg linking Merced to Bakersfield.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

It’s that time of year when black bears are beefing up, often on trash, in Southern California’s foothill communities.

From fall to early winter, bears quadruple their food intake in preparation for the cooler months — bears here don’t really hibernate given our mild weather and plethora of resources, but they do slow down during the winter (as we all should). And right now, mother bears are looking to find a safe place to den and have their cubs.

Bears aren’t just roaming the roads of mountain towns either. They’re in suburban neighborhood streets along the 210 Freeway corridor — including Altadena, Sierra Madre and Monrovia — and even in Encino and Tarzana.

A black bear walks along an Arcadia street earlier this month.

(

Courtesy Wild Neighbor

)

This time of year is when humans and bears might come into conflict more frequently, says a former biologist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

“You're going to see those bears just eating ravenously, foraging all day for food, and then also they're going to start looking for these potential denning sites under our crawl spaces, unfortunately,” said Jessica West, a human-wildlife conflict specialist who over the last five years worked for the state on bear coexistence efforts from Santa Barbara to San Diego.

Nearly 60,000 black bears are estimated to live in California. Here in Southern California, the estimate is around 2,000, according to the latest count by the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife.

State resources to help communities coexist with bears have been cut. That includes West, who was the sole wildlife conflict biologist serving Southern California counties. Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed a bill into law that aims to bring some of those resources back, but in the meantime, the need remains.

“More than ever, people and bears are sharing space,” West said.  "The fact is that they're here and they're not going anywhere, and we're here as humans and we're not going anywhere.”

Neither did West’s passion for wildlife coexistence when she was laid off. That’s why she just launched her own business to help fill the resource gap: Wild Neighbor.

Jessica West, a bear biologist, installs an "unwelcome" mat at a home. The electrified mat helps keeps curious bears away.

(

Courtesy Wild Neighbor

)

An "unwelcome" mat with bear prints outside of a home in Ojai.

(

Courtesy Wild Neighbor

)

She offers detailed property assessments and recommendations for $150. She focuses primarily on prevention, such as strategically placing electric wiring and “unwelcome” mats to secure crawl spaces, trash and other vulnerable areas, which can cost $350 to around $900 depending on the home. She also rents such equipment if residents prefer. West works with manufacturers of electric bear-resistant tools that have been vetted for fire safety and bear conflict.

“We really want to avoid potentially orphaning those cubs,” she said.

It’s best to avoid allowing a bear to get into your crawl space or trash in the first place, West said. When bears become too accustomed to humans and eating human food, the risk of injury to people and pets rises. And the bears themselves are more likely to be euthanized.

In 2023, California hit a tragic milestone: It was the state’s first documented killing of a human by a black bear, in Northern California. In Southern California, foothill communities such as Sierra Madre have seen several bear-related injuries in recent years (more on that in our 2024 podcast on this topic). Several bears, including a well-known one in La Cañada Flintridge, have also been euthanized in recent years.

In the vast majority of cases, this is preventable, West said, if residents take a little responsibility for securing their own properties. That can also save thousands of dollars in damage caused by a bear.

Since West is no longer with the state, she can’t trap bears that have risen to the point of becoming a problem — for example, those that learn how to regularly get into homes or cars, or have lost their fear of humans. She does encourage her clients to share sightings and any concerning conflicts with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, but she doesn’t share anything herself without clients’ permission. (Learn how to report bear sightings or human-bear conflict here.)

West said that in lieu of state resources, companies like hers may become more common.

“What [clients] can expect is someone who is going to listen to them, and someone who is passionate about their job and really wants to help them,” West said. “Because at the end of the day, I'm a bear biologist by training. I love bears, but my whole goal in all of this is to help people. Because if we help people, we're also helping bears.”