Mega Master Hearings Reach Boston and Chelmsford Immigration Courts: What Massachusetts Immigrants Should Do This Week

The Headline

NPR reported on the morning of Tuesday, May 26, 2026 that the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that runs the immigration courts inside the Department of Justice, has begun scheduling massive master calendar hearings of 100 or more respondents at a time. The American Immigration Lawyers Association is calling these dockets mega masters. Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, practicing policy counsel at AILA, told NPR that the practice appears designed to increase how many respondents receive in absentia removal orders when they do not appear or arrive late. According to attorneys who spoke with NPR, the practice has begun in the Chicago Immigration Court and in two Massachusetts courts: the Boston Immigration Court at the John F. Kennedy Federal Building and the Chelmsford Immigration Court at 151 Coolidge Avenue. The Dallas Immigration Court is reportedly next. EOIR did not respond to NPR's request for comment.

For Massachusetts immigrants and their families, this is a serious change in how a routine procedural appearance is being run. A master calendar that used to seat two or three dozen respondents may now be calling 100 or more cases on the same docket. Hearings originally scheduled for 2027, 2028, or 2029 are reportedly being advanced with limited notice. The risk that a respondent will miss a hearing because she or he was never told the date had changed is real. The consequence of a missed hearing in this posture is an in absentia removal order entered the same day, with the order taking effect immediately and triggering ICE detention authority.

What a Master Calendar Hearing Is and Why Mega Masters Are Different

A master calendar hearing is the procedural appearance at the front end of removal proceedings under INA 240. The judge identifies the parties, reviews the charges of removability in the Notice to Appear, takes pleadings on those charges, sets deadlines for relief applications such as Form I-589 for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, Form EOIR-42B for cancellation of removal, and Form EOIR-42A for cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents, and sets the individual merits hearing where the respondent's claims for relief are actually heard. A master calendar appearance is not the trial. It is the gate that opens the trial. For most respondents in Boston and Chelmsford it has historically lasted a few minutes.

The traditional Boston and Chelmsford master calendar dockets seat two or three dozen respondents in a courtroom at the same call time. Judges work through the cases in sequence. Respondents who arrive late can usually still be heard later in the morning or afternoon. Counsel can step in and out of the courtroom to speak with clients in the hallway. The mega master format reportedly compresses 100 or more respondents into a single call time. Courtrooms designed for two or three dozen people do not seat 100. Hallways fill. The pressure on respondents to appear at the precise call time, with the precise documents, in a precise seat, is much higher than under the prior practice.

The combination of compressed scheduling and increased volume is the operative concern. Where an unrepresented respondent does not have counsel reviewing the EOIR portal each week, a rescheduled date can be missed. Where notice is sent to a stale address, the respondent never sees the rescheduled date. Where 100 people are called at the same time, the inevitable late arrivals risk being treated as no-shows. Each of those outcomes can ripen into an in absentia order of removal the same morning.

The Statutory Framework for In Absentia Orders

An immigration judge has the authority to order a respondent removed in absentia under INA 240(b)(5)(A) when the respondent fails to appear at a properly noticed hearing. The order is entered without the respondent present. It is a removal order. It vests ICE with the authority to detain the respondent on encounter and to remove the respondent under that order without any further proceeding.

The statutory framework requires notice. Under INA 239(a)(1), the initial Notice to Appear must be served on the respondent in person, or by mail if personal service is not practicable, and must specify the time and place of the proceeding. Under INA 239(a)(2), any subsequent change in the time or place of the proceeding must be communicated by written notice to the respondent and to counsel of record. Notice by mail to the respondent's last known address is generally sufficient if the respondent has not filed a current address with the court.

The Supreme Court has twice addressed defects in the initial Notice to Appear. In Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the Court held that a putative Notice to Appear that omits the time or place of the initial hearing does not trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal. In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), the Court clarified that a Notice to Appear under INA 239(a)(1) means a single document containing the required information, and that a series of documents cannot be combined to cure the omission. Although Pereira and Niz-Chavez are stop-time rule cases by their facts, the reasoning has been used to challenge in absentia orders where the underlying NTA was procedurally defective. Practitioners should consult current case law in the First Circuit and recent Board of Immigration Appeals decisions when evaluating any specific in absentia order.

How to Rescind an In Absentia Order

An in absentia order entered under INA 240(b)(5)(A) can be rescinded under INA 240(b)(5)(C). There are two pathways.

First, a motion to reopen filed within 180 days of the in absentia order may be granted on a showing that the failure to appear was the result of exceptional circumstances as defined in INA 240(e)(1). Exceptional circumstances includes serious illness of the respondent, serious illness or death of the respondent's spouse, child, or parent, battery or extreme cruelty by the respondent's spouse or other family member, and other circumstances beyond the control of the respondent. The standard is demanding. Confusion about the date, ordinary transportation problems, and forgetfulness are not exceptional circumstances. Documentation matters. A hospital admission record, a death certificate, a police report, a contemporaneous medical note, or comparable third-party evidence is the foundation of an exceptional circumstances motion.

Second, a motion to reopen filed at any time may be granted if the respondent demonstrates that he or she did not receive notice in accordance with INA 239(a)(1) or 239(a)(2), or that the respondent was in federal or state custody and the failure to appear was through no fault of the respondent. There is no time limit on the no-notice motion. This is the more powerful pathway in many cases arising from the mega master practice. Where EOIR moved a hearing up but the notice never reached the respondent, the no-notice motion can be filed long after the 180-day window has closed. The respondent must support the motion with a sworn statement attesting that he or she did not receive notice and with evidence such as undelivered or returned mail, address records, and any communications with EOIR.

An automatic stay of removal under 8 CFR 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) applies while a properly filed motion to rescind an in absentia order is pending before the immigration judge, provided the motion is filed under INA 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) on the no-notice ground. Counsel should confirm the procedural posture before relying on the automatic stay in any specific case.

What to Do This Week If You Have a Case in Boston or Chelmsford

Verify your next hearing date today. Call the EOIR automated case information line at 1-800-898-7180 and listen for the next scheduled hearing date and time. Cross-check the online system at acis.eoir.justice.gov. If you have registered for the EOIR online portal at portal.eoir.justice.gov, log in and look for any new notices. Do this every week from now until your individual hearing.

Confirm your address on file is current. Under 8 CFR 1003.15(d)(2), every respondent must file Form EOIR-33/IC with the immigration court within 5 working days of any change of address. The form is the only authoritative way to update the court record. A change of address with USCIS or with the post office does not update EOIR. File Form EOIR-33/IC for every move, and file a copy with the DHS Office of the Chief Counsel that is prosecuting the case.

Retain counsel before the master calendar if you can. Under INA 240(b)(4)(A), every respondent has the right to be represented at no expense to the government. There is no public defender system in immigration court. The List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers is posted by EOIR on its website and includes Massachusetts providers such as the Political Asylum / Immigration Representation Project, the Greater Boston Legal Services Immigration Unit, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, the Catholic Charities of Boston Immigration Legal Services, and others. A consultation with a qualified immigration attorney before the master calendar appearance is often the single highest-value step a respondent can take.

Arrive at least one hour before any scheduled hearing. Both the Boston and Chelmsford courts require building security screening. The Boston court is at the John F. Kennedy Federal Building at 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02203. The Chelmsford court is at 151 Coolidge Avenue, Chelmsford, Massachusetts 01824. Parking and access at both courts has historically been adequate for routine master calendar dockets. A 100-person docket will not be routine.

Bring photo identification, the most recent hearing notice, the original Notice to Appear, and any prior filings. Bring water, a snack, and any medication you will need over the course of a possibly long morning. Bring a notebook and a pen.

If you are unrepresented and called early, ask the judge for a continuance to seek counsel. The right to counsel is statutory, and judges generally grant a first continuance for that purpose. State the request clearly and on the record. Do not enter pleadings or concede removability without counsel.

If you receive a new hearing notice with a sooner date, do not ignore it. Treat the new date as binding. If the new date is impossible because of medical, family, or work conflicts, instruct counsel to file a motion to continue under 8 CFR 1003.29 promptly and supported by documentation. Do not assume the new notice was sent in error.

If You Already Have an In Absentia Order

If you or a family member has already received an in absentia order from the Boston or Chelmsford court, do the following without delay.

First, locate the order. The order is typically titled Order of the Immigration Judge and is mailed to the address of record after the hearing. The text of the order will state that the respondent failed to appear and that removal is ordered to a designated country. If the order has not arrived but you know the hearing was missed, check ACIS at 1-800-898-7180 for the case status.

Second, calculate the 180-day window. The window runs from the date of the in absentia order. A motion to reopen on exceptional circumstances grounds under INA 240(e)(1) must be filed within 180 days. After 180 days, the only available pathway is the no-notice motion under INA 240(b)(5)(C)(ii), which has no deadline but requires a showing that notice was defective.

Third, retain counsel. A motion to reopen in absentia is not a do-it-yourself filing. It must be supported by a sworn statement, by documentary evidence of the exceptional circumstances or the notice defect, by evidence of prima facie eligibility for any underlying relief such as asylum or cancellation of removal, and by a statement of the procedural history. The motion must be filed with the immigration court that entered the order and served on the DHS Office of the Chief Counsel. A poorly drafted motion can be denied on procedural grounds and can compromise later filings.

Fourth, do not depart the United States. Departure after entry of an in absentia order can in some circumstances be treated as a self-execution of the removal order and can trigger the bar to admission under INA 212(a)(9)(A). Do not act on the assumption that leaving the country quietly will preserve future options.

Fifth, do not assume ICE will not act on the order. ICE has the authority to execute an outstanding in absentia removal order at any time, including at a routine traffic stop, at a courthouse, at home, or at a workplace. The order is a removal order. The ICE Boston Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts has been active in identifying respondents with outstanding orders. Counsel can advise on whether and when to file a stay of removal under 8 CFR 241.6 or to seek prosecutorial discretion.

The Broader Context

The mega master practice comes one week after the Justice Department announced its largest single immigration judge class in agency history. According to the DOJ press release of May 20, 2026, EOIR onboarded 77 immigration judges and 5 temporary military lawyers serving as judges. The agency reports that 153 new immigration judges have been hired in fiscal year 2026, more than in any prior fiscal year. At the same time, NPR has reported that several immigration judges, including in New York and California, were terminated on the same day that the new class was sworn in. An NPR analysis from last year found that judges with prior experience representing immigrant clients have been more likely to be terminated than judges whose prior experience was at the Department of Homeland Security.

The mega master practice also comes against a backdrop of expanded executive enforcement. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Trump administration has reported more than 600,000 deportations during 2025, with stated goals of one million per year. NPR has reported that the percentage of respondents appearing at scheduled hearings has dropped during the administration as fear of detention at the courthouse itself has risen. The April 30, 2026 ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Doe v. Trump blocking USCIS adjudicative holds on certain country categories illustrates the active litigation landscape over administration policies. Whether the mega master practice will draw a similar legal challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, or under the notice provisions of INA 239 remains to be seen.

The practical point for Massachusetts immigrants is this. The procedural protections in the statute remain in place. The notice requirements of INA 239 remain in place. The rescission framework of INA 240(b)(5)(C) remains in place. The right to counsel under INA 240(b)(4)(A) remains in place. What has changed is the operational tempo of the immigration courts. Respondents and their counsel now need to verify dates more often, file motions more quickly, document address changes more carefully, and prepare for the master calendar appearance as if the entire case turns on it.

Frequently Asked Questions