PORTLAND, Ore. — Immigration lawyers are warning about the growing use of unusually large preliminary hearing calendars at Portland’s federal immigration court, saying the scheduling practice can sharply raise the stakes for people whose hearing dates are moved forward or who fail to appear. The proceedings, commonly called “mega master” hearings by attorneys and court observers, group large numbers of immigration cases into the same morning or afternoon calendar. Portland officials said earlier this month that they were closely watching the practice and that some hearings had been rescheduled with limited notice.

The issue has gained new attention after a Sept. 16 report highlighted warnings from lawyers about the tactic’s use in the Portland Immigration Court. The local concerns fit into a nationwide change that began appearing at scale during the spring. Reporting by NPR and other outlets found courts scheduling 100 or more respondents in some master-calendar sessions, substantially more than the smaller groups that had traditionally appeared together for preliminary hearings. Attorneys interviewed in that reporting said the largest calendars often involved people who did not yet have legal representation.

A master calendar hearing is not normally the full trial-like stage of an immigration case. According to EOIR’s official practice manual, it is generally used for pleadings, scheduling and other preliminary matters. An immigration judge may explain allegations in the government’s Notice to Appear, advise the respondent of the right to obtain a lawyer at no expense to the government, take initial pleadings, identify contested issues, establish filing deadlines and schedule a later individual hearing where disputed evidence or an application for relief can be considered.

The consequences of missing that preliminary proceeding can nevertheless be severe. EOIR’s current guidance says any delay in appearing at either a master calendar or individual calendar hearing may result in proceedings being held in absentia. The agency’s policy manual states that a person ordered removed while absent may seek reopening under specified circumstances, including certain cases involving lack of proper notice, but an in-absentia order can otherwise become the operative removal decision. That connection between scheduling, notice and nonappearance is central to attorneys’ objections to the mass-calendar approach.

Portland’s city government publicly identified the issue on Sept. 3. During a City Council session, officials described mega master hearings as proceedings in which a very large number of people are scheduled at the same time. The presentation also said some hearings had been rescheduled with little notice and noted that a person who misses a hearing can be ordered deported in their absence. City officials said they were monitoring developments so local agencies, legal providers and community organizations could respond as federal immigration activity changed.

Separate analysis of publicly available immigration-court information indicates Portland was part of the expansion earlier in the year. BKLg, a legal-technology project that analyzes EOIR data, identified Portland among numerous courts where unusually large master-calendar blocks occurred during the final week of May. Its subsequent June analysis again included Portland among cities where the practice appeared. Those findings are independent analyses rather than an official EOIR classification; the term “mega master” itself is informal, and the government does not publish a formal numerical definition for such a docket.

Federal officials describe the scheduling changes differently from critics. The Justice Department has said reducing the immigration-court backlog is one of the administration’s highest priorities. In response to reporting about crowded calendars in Miami, EOIR said it was continuing to add immigration judges and would make scheduling adjustments so cases could be handled in a “timely and lawful manner.” The agency has also reported substantial reductions in its pending caseload since early 2025 as it increased case completions and added judges.

Attorneys and advocacy groups have focused instead on whether rapid rescheduling leaves enough time for respondents to receive notice, find counsel and prepare. NPR reported in May that lawyers had encountered cases in which hearings previously set for later years were advanced to much earlier dates. Lawyers said people who did not regularly check their court information could be particularly vulnerable if mailed or electronic notification did not reach them in time. EOIR’s own practice manual says that when the date, time or location of a master calendar hearing changes, the respondent is notified at the address on record with the court.

The Portland court is operated by EOIR within the Department of Justice, not by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That distinction matters because immigration judges adjudicate cases while Department of Homeland Security attorneys represent the government in removal proceedings. EOIR’s current Portland court page, updated Sept. 14, lists the court as part of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge and provides information on hearings, access and court procedures. The agency separately notes that ICE and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are components of DHS rather than EOIR.

The scheduling controversy is not confined to Oregon. In Miami, NPR reported earlier this month that mega master calendars were producing lines of hundreds of people outside immigration court. An American Immigration Lawyers Association official told NPR that attorneys were concerned crowded dockets could complicate timely notice and access to counsel, while DOJ and EOIR emphasized backlog reduction and lawful case processing. Reuters Connect published new footage on Sept. 16 showing extended waits at the Miami court under the same scheduling approach, underscoring that the practice remains active nationally.

The central dispute in Portland is therefore not whether immigration judges have authority to conduct master calendar hearings or issue removal orders when statutory requirements for an in-absentia proceeding are satisfied. It is whether dramatically larger and faster-moving calendars make it harder for respondents to receive notice and participate meaningfully before those consequences attach. EOIR’s rules continue to require respondents to appear at scheduled hearings unless an immigration judge has waived their appearance, while lawyers challenging the new scheduling pattern argue that the reliability and timing of notice become especially important when dates are changed on an accelerated timetable.

For Portland, the Sept. 16 warnings add to evidence that a court-management strategy first documented nationally months ago has become a continuing local concern. The Justice Department maintains that faster case processing is necessary to address a large docket and prevent cases from languishing. Attorneys and advocates say efficiency cannot be separated from questions about notice, representation and the consequences of nonappearance. With similar mass calendars appearing in courts around the country, Portland has become another focal point in a broader debate over how quickly the federal immigration-court system can move cases while maintaining the procedures required in removal proceedings.