Kyra Lilien, a California immigration judge who served at the San Francisco and Concord immigration courts, has filed a 14-page lawsuit against the Department of Justice and acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. Lilien says the Biden administration refused to convert her probationary appointment to a permanent post because she is a registered Democrat and because of her ties to immigrant-rights groups. The complaint points to age, gender, Spanish fluency and community connections as improper factors. Her attorneys say this fits a broader pattern of dismissals across the region.
The suit names nearly 30 other immigration judges nationwide who were either let go or not converted from probationary status, including 14 from the Concord and San Francisco courts. Lilien alleges these actions disproportionately targeted women and others who do not fit a narrow management profile. Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law, one of her lawyers, says Lilien simply did not fit their mold, and he argues the moves were impermissible and unlawful. That argument frames the litigation as more than a personnel dispute.
Lilien was appointed to the San Francisco Immigration Court on July 23, 2023, and transferred to the Concord court in February 2024, serving roughly the standard two-year probationary span under Justice Department policy. The complaint stresses that she met or exceeded the performance standards expected of probationary immigration judges during that full period. For fiscal years 2024 and 2025 her probationary period reports returned the highest available assessment ratings. The paperwork forms the backbone of her claim that the non-conversion was not performance-based.
Beyond paperwork, the lawsuit points to outcome data drawn from TRAC Immigration showing Lilien denied 34 percent of asylum claims brought before her. Her record, the filing suggests, does not support administrative claims that she should be removed or not converted. The filing notes that she received a formal notice on July 11, 2025, that her probationary term would not be extended or converted to a permanent appointment. That notice cited the attorney general’s decision and referenced Article II of the Constitution as the legal basis for the choice.
The suit zeroes in on memos circulated by EOIR leadership in early 2025, documents the complaint says demonstrate a hostile hiring stance. Sirce Owen, who was serving as acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the time, allegedly described certain immigrant advocacy groups in a memo as “extremist leftist organizations” that promote illegal immigration and seek to undermine immigration courts. Another memo criticized appointment practices from the prior administration. Together, Lilien’s team says these memos reveal a management climate intolerant of specific backgrounds.
Plaintiffs argue the memos and employment decisions signal animus toward hiring individuals with immigrant-rights backgrounds, ethnic minorities, women and others labeled as DEI hires. The lawsuit claims these factors played a role in Lilien’s non-conversion and in the broader pattern of dismissals. From a Republican perspective, that looks like a politicized personnel purge disguised as routine policy. The legal filing frames the issue as one of improper motives rather than meritorious personnel review.
Legally, Lilien charges that her civil rights and First Amendment protections were violated when the DOJ opted not to convert her appointment. The complaint says the decision infringed on rights by penalizing her for affiliations and viewpoints instead of job performance. By naming the Department of Justice and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the suit escalates to a political and institutional level. The case will test how far agency leaders may go in shaping the bench through probationary conversions.
The complaint also calls attention to demographics among those not converted, pointing out that many were women and individuals with ties to immigrant communities. Plaintiffs paint a picture of a hiring pattern that rejects certain backgrounds, which they say undermines the credibility and independence of immigration adjudication. For conservatives watching, the controversy raises a different worry: whether removal decisions cut both ways depending on which administration is in power. Either way, the litigation promises a drawn-out courtroom contest.
Kevin Owen and his team are asking a court to correct what they describe as unlawful action and to enforce protections for judges who meet or exceed standards. The suit will likely draw scrutiny to EOIR practices and the memos cited in the filing. If courts find that political tests were applied, it could reshape how probationary conversions are handled across federal immigration courts. The stakes include not only Lilien’s career but also how appointment and accountability powers are used in sensitive federal tribunals.
Whatever the outcome, the case underscores tensions inside the immigration system over who gets to serve and what backgrounds are acceptable. Lilien’s filing is now the vehicle for a wider argument about fairness, institutional neutrality and the legal limits on removing probationary federal judges. The fight ahead will test whether policy memos and management preferences can lawfully determine the makeup of the immigration bench.
