Inside the Concord mega hearings where over 600 immigrants were ordered deported in June 40%

By Clara-Sophia Daly17%

7/20/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.2% saturation with 375 hits. Analysis detected 2,377 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,202 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45% and a BS Rank of 40% (13,205 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.30% of the article peer group.

On a recent Wednesday, Judge Li Eric Wong appeared on a flat screen TV mounted to the wall of a sparely decorated immigration courtroom in Concord, Calif. 
He had 91 cases on his calendar for the day. 
Up until this year, Wong and other immigration judges generally averaged 20 cases a day, but nowadays immigration courts across the country are holding “mega master calendar” hearings where upwards of 100 cases may be slated for a single hearing. 
The new mega hearings are not about who shows up, say immigration attorneys and advocates, but about those who don’t. 
As Judge Samantha Begovich often warns the immigrants in her Concord courtroom, “If you do not show up in court when you are scheduled to appear, I can order you removed in your absence.” 
That is happening frequently in Concord, according to new data, and the consequences are dire: A removal order terminates a pending immigration case and acts as an invitation for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest and deport the immigrant. 
In June, 684 immigrants, or 42 percent of the total number of immigrants with a mega master calendar hearing, were ordered removed in abstentia at Concord, according to federal court data analyzed by data analysts Joseph Gunther and Brandon Marrow. 
The mega hearings began in Concord on June 1. 
That is where immigration hearings that were once held in San Francisco have largely moved  San Francisco’s two immigration courts shuttered or dramatically downsized over the past 18 months. 
By the end of this year, all of San Francisco’s hearings will move to the Concord courts. 
Former immigration judge Jeremiah Johnson said of the hearings: “It’s a trap for those who do not show up and a complete waste of time for those who do.” 
At the recent hearing in July, only 48 of the 91 immigrants scheduled to appear showed up. 
Even for them, the rules have changed. 
Family members are usually not allowed unless they are named and only two volunteers are allowed inside each court room to support immigrants. 
For those who do show up to the modern office building in a suburban area of Concord, it’s a mostly mundane affair. 
The court takes up three of the 10 floors where other establishments, like a financial firm and an urgent care clinic, also have offices. 
There are 21 court rooms which, most days, are holding mega hearings. 
On the Wednesday in July, immigrants awaiting their hearings sat on wooden benches, many with children by their side. 
During his hearing, an immigrant from Honduras rose from the bench to sit at a small table set up in front of the television monitor where Judge Wong and a translator appeared on the screen. 
“What is your name?” 
Wong asked through an interpreter. 
The judge then read out the address he had on file, and asked if it was up-to-date. 
“Si,” the immigrant said. 
“Yes,” said the translator. 
“Do you have an attorney?” 
the judge asked. 
“No, I need more time.” 
After a few exchanges about the asylum process, the judge set a hearing for June 26, 2028, the date given to all of the immigrants that day. 
And, so the day went. 
For the next four or so hours, Wong went through the cases of 48 immigrants in much the same manner. 
The man  and many of the other immigrants on the docket that day  hadn’t been scheduled to appear in court again and discuss their cases until 2028. 
But in late May or early June, their court date was suddenly moved up. 
That could likely happen again and, again, put their status at risk, said Jere Ramsey, a volunteer data analyst who has been collecting data alongside courtroom observers. 
Ramsey calculates that at least 71 percent of those who did not appear at their mega master hearing in June were ordered deported. 
When an immigrant’s court date is changed, the Executive Office for Immigration Review sends out a letter informing them of their new court date, and updates their online portal. 
But it’s entirely possible for an immigrant to miss both, said Sergio Lopez, the volunteer coordinator for SAFE Center, a nonprofit that provides all kinds of support to immigrants, including legal support. 
Addresses change, and so do attorneys. 
Some immigrants may not have access or know how to use a computer. 
English fluency can be another barrier. 
And even those who do find out about the change, may be too afraid to show up in court. 
“People don’t receive the notice in time, they miss it, and some others also get scared and they don’t show,” said Lopez 
“People are terrified,” said Vicky Benavente, a volunteer. 
Earlier, when master calendar hearings were smaller, it was also more common for immigrants to have an attorney, according to advocates. 
Between November 2025 and May 2026, according to the data compiled by Ramsey, 65 percent of immigrants who appeared in Concord did not have an attorney. 
The consequences are stark: Nationwide, respondents without an attorney only won their cases in immigration court in two percent of cases sampled. 
When an immigrant is ordered removed at hearings they failed to attend, they do have recourse: they can file a motion to reopen their case, or file an appeal within 30 days. 
But that window only helps an immigrant who discovers they have missed a hearing in time to file. 
And filing a motion is difficult for those who have no lawyer. 
For those who do have a lawyer, the filing fee has become more expensive: shooting up from around $100 to over $1,000. 
Sometimes, after addressing the immigrants who appeared that day, a judge will go through those who did not appear and order a portion of those immigrants deported, on the spot. 
On the Wednesday in July, Wong did not do this, according to the court observer present. 
A day earlier, at the end of an individual hearing, another judge, Jacob Stender, read through a long list of no-shows from his previous mega master docket, ordering dozens of them removed from the country. 
He referenced each by the first few digits of the so called A-number used to track immigrants. 
As he did this, a volunteer courtroom observer seated in the back row, wrote down notes about each case, bearing witness to a seemingly administrative and mundane action that is at once life and death for some immigrants  many of who are asylum seekers  who have been ordered removed to a country where their life may be in danger. 
The mega master hearings are just another of the changes under the Trump administration that, say immigration advocates and attorneys, have transformed immigration courts from a pathway for immigrants to legalize their status in this country, and into a tool to rapidly arrest and deport them. 
The Executive Office for Immigration Review thinks otherwise. 
When asked questions about the purpose of master calendar hearings, a spokesperson for the agency replied, “Unnecessary delay hurts both aliens with meritorious claims and the American public, who wish to see aliens with non-meritorious claims removed as quickly as possible.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Clara-Sophia Daly: 2.9%Mission Local: 2.7%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 3.3%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.5%Mission Local: 0.9%Anchoring Bias3.3%This article: 9.7%Clara-Sophia Daly: 4.4%Mission Local: 2.9%Availability Heuristic9.7%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.6%Mission Local: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.1%Mission Local: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias7.4%This article: 10.1%Clara-Sophia Daly: 6.1%Mission Local: 4.7%Framing Effect10.1%This article: 1.8%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.5%Mission Local: 0.4%Loss Aversion1.8%This article: 1.8%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.3%Mission Local: 0.7%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.1%Mission Local: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Clara-Sophia Daly: 2.5%Mission Local: 1.3%Pessimism Bias8.2%This article: 31.2%Clara-Sophia Daly: 13.5%Mission Local: 5.9%Negativity Bias31.2%This article: 3.4%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.1%Mission Local: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.1%Mission Local: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 1.3%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.4%Mission Local: 1.1%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.3%Mission Local: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.8%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.7%Mission Local: 2.7%Appeal to Authority5.8%This article: 5.7%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.4%Mission Local: 1.6%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.5%Mission Local: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.7%Clara-Sophia Daly: 6.4%Mission Local: 4.8%Hasty Generalization11.7%This article: 2.5%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.2%Red Herring2.5%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 6.2%Mission Local: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion11.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.7%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.9%Mission Local: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.7%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.1%Mission Local: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.1%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.4%Mission Local: 0.5%Composition/Division5.1%This article: 8.9%Clara-Sophia Daly: 2.3%Mission Local: 2.7%Anecdotal8.9%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.6%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.6%Mission Local: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.6%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.7%Mission Local: 1.0%Unattributed Quote3.2%This article: 2.8%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.9%Mission Local: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 22.1%Clara-Sophia Daly: 4.0%Mission Local: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice22.1%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.9%Mission Local: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 1.8%Mission Local: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.8%Mission Local: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Clara-Sophia Daly: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1202 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers18%attributed speech988writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJudge Samantha Begovich • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJeremiah Johnson • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Li Eric Wong • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJere Ramsey • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJere Ramsey • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageSergio Lopez • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSergio Lopez • 22 words • 0.0% coverageVicky Benavente • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJere Ramsey • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 61 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageExecutive Office for Immigration Review • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jeremiah Johnson

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words14% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.9 ptsWriter: 26.9%Jeremiah Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Jeremiah Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Jeremiah Johnson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.