Boston Immigration Judge Roopal Patel Fired Amid Immigration Court Shake-Up After High-Profile Ruling

BOSTON— Roopal Patel, a Boston-based immigration judge who recently ruled against the deportation of a Tufts University student, has been dismissed by the Trump administration as part of a broader reshaping of the nation’s immigration courts.

Patel’s firing, first reported by The New York Times and confirmed by the National Association of Immigration Judges, comes after her January decision in the case of Rümeysa Öztürk. In that ruling, Patel determined that the federal government had not established sufficient grounds to deport Öztürk, a Turkish national whose visa had been revoked following her involvement in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

According to reporting from WBUR and GBH News, Patel was terminated last week near the end of her two-year probationary period. Immigration judges are employees of the Department of Justice and can be dismissed by the attorney general during that timeframe.

“I received an email stating that they weren’t going to convert my position, and it was my last day,” Patel told GBH News, describing the notice she received while on a break during an asylum hearing. She said the timing was “surprising,” though she had anticipated possible dismissal amid a wave of firings affecting judges appointed under the previous administration.

Patel’s termination is part of a broader trend. Since President Donald Trump returned to office, more than 100 immigration judges have been dismissed, according to the National Association of Immigration Judges, with additional departures through retirements and resignations. The Department of Justice has simultaneously hired new judges, though overall staffing levels have declined in some courts.

In Massachusetts, the impact has been particularly visible. Boston’s immigration court has seen its number of judges drop from seven to five over the past year, while the Chelmsford court has shrunk even more dramatically. The changes come as the state faces a backlog of at least 148,000 pending immigration cases, according to federal data.

Patel’s ruling in the Öztürk case drew national attention. Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, was detained by immigration authorities after co-authoring an opinion piece critical of her university’s response to the war in Gaza. Patel concluded that the government had not met its burden to justify deportation. The Department of Homeland Security has since appealed that decision.

Patel said she does not believe the ruling alone explains her firing. “I think I could have ruled either way in that case and probably would have still ended up fired,” she told GBH News, pointing instead to what she described as a broader pattern.

She suggested the dismissals may reflect an effort to reshape the immigration bench. “The firings seem informed by a kind of political agenda to reflect the policy agenda of the current administration,” Patel said, referencing a focus on stricter immigration enforcement.

Another Massachusetts judge, Nina Froes, was also dismissed the same day. Froes had previously blocked the deportation of a Palestinian student activist in a separate high-profile case. Like Patel, she was still within her probationary period.

A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts, declined to comment on individual personnel decisions but said judges are evaluated based on factors including impartiality, adherence to the law, and professionalism.

The firings have drawn scrutiny from legal observers and advocates, who warn that frequent turnover could further strain an already burdened immigration system and raise questions about judicial independence.

As appeals continue in several of the high-profile cases tied to the dismissed judges, the long-term impact of the administration’s changes to the immigration courts remains uncertain.