SCOOP: Judge Caught Using AI to Read His Court Decisions
Newly obtained EOIR audio records reveal Judge John P. Burns uses artificial intelligence to deliver immigration court decisions.
WASHINGTON — Immigration Judge John P. Burns has been using artificial intelligence to generate audio recordings of his courtroom decisions at the New York Broadway Immigration Court, according to internal Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) records obtained by Migrant Insider.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by:
“That seems highly unusual,” said a senior Justice Department official familiar with EOIR operations, who requested anonymity to discuss internal matters. The official could not confirm whether Burns employs the AI to draft full written decisions or only to read his written rulings aloud using text‑to‑speech software, according to audio files reviewed by Migrant Insider.
A Test Case for AI in the Immigration Courts
The concern comes months after Acting EOIR Director Sirce E. Owen circulated Policy Memorandum 25‑40, which acknowledged that the immigration courts have “neither a blanket prohibition on the use of generative AI in its proceedings nor a mandatory disclosure requirement regarding its use.”
The August memo—distributed internally to all immigration judges and court administrators—permitted individual courts to adopt local standing orders on AI use but did not require them to disclose when such technologies are applied in adjudications.
The memo’s omission of any restriction on text‑to‑voice or AI‑generated decision delivery appears to leave it to individual judges’ discretion. Burns appears to be among the first to take advantage of that gap. His courtroom assistants said the use of “voice rendering” software began earlier this year and is now a regular feature of his decisions.
One of the Nation’s Most Restrictive Judges
Burns’ use of AI tools comes amid controversy over his record as one of the most restrictive immigration judges in the country. According to data compiled by
, Burns approved just 2 percent of asylum claims between fiscal 2019 and 2025—compared with a national average of 57.7 percent. Pathfinder data show the same 2 percent benchmark, placing him among the lowest nationwide.The numbers have fueled criticism from immigration advocates, who say the fusion of extreme denial rates with opaque AI‑assisted adjudication threatens defendants’ faith in the system. “When a person’s freedom depends on a judge’s voice, there needs to be certainty that it’s the judge’s own reasoning being rendered—not a synthesized layer of technology,” said one immigration lawyer who practices before the Broadway court.
A Highly Controversial Appointment
Internal EOIR emails released through the memos show that Burns’ path to the bench was unusually political. Initially interviewed in May 2020, he was rated “highly qualified” by two Assistant Chief Immigration Judges for his litigation experience but ranked overall as “Not Recommend.” Senior EOIR leadership later overrode that ranking—reclassifying him as “Highly Recommended” in September 2020, just as Trump‑era DOJ officials accelerated appointments of judges with prosecutorial backgrounds.
At the time of his selection, Burns served as an Assistant Chief Counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New York, where he represented the government in removal proceedings and appeals. His résumé and military record were cited in his eventual appointment announcement that December, one of 14 judges named by the outgoing administration. Nearly all came from government enforcement roles, according to EOIR data logs.
Pattern of Political Replacement
The Burns memos form part of a broader DOJ paper trail indicating a systematic reshaping of the immigration judiciary. Recent EOIR correspondence references the removal—through firings and resignations—of more than 125 judges since January, replaced with politically aligned appointees.
An August rule further loosened hiring standards, allowing the Attorney General to appoint “any licensed attorney” as a temporary immigration judge.
Broader Due Process Implications
EOIR declined to comment on Burns’ use of text‑to‑voice technology or his designation history. A Justice Department spokesperson responded only that “immigration judges apply the law to the facts of each case.”
But as AI applications quietly enter immigration courtrooms without disclosure requirements or oversight, experts warn of an accelerating shift. “We’re witnessing the automation of adjudication in a system that already struggles with fairness,” said one former EOIR official. “When the human element fades, so does accountability.”
Dig Deeper
If you’ve read this far, you understand why transparency matters. If you value investigations like this, subscribe or donate to help Migrant Insider keep pressing for answers.
This is insane! How can we stop it?