Removal Proceedings in Immigration Court: What Montana Clients Need to Know
Immigration Law of Montana, P.C. • Last reviewed April 2026
Bottom Line Up Front
If you have received a Notice to Appear, you are in removal proceedings — the formal legal process by which the federal government seeks to deport you. Montana has no immigration court of its own. Your case will be heard by the Portland Immigration Court, almost certainly by video. Proceedings currently take years from start to finish. You have rights, you have options, and the outcome is not predetermined. But the window to act effectively opens early and closes fast.
What Are Removal Proceedings?
Removal proceedings are the administrative legal process the U.S. government uses to remove non-citizens from the country. They take place in Immigration Court, which is overseen by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a division of the Department of Justice — not the federal court system.
This distinction matters. Immigration Court operates under different rules than federal civil or criminal court. There is no jury. There is no right to a government-appointed attorney. The judge is an administrative law judge, not an Article III federal judge. And the government’s burden of proof — “clear and convincing evidence” that you are removable — is a real legal standard that experienced counsel can challenge.
Common grounds for removal include:
- Entering the United States without inspection at a port of entry
- Overstaying a visa or other authorized period of admission
- Violating the conditions of your immigration status
- Criminal convictions that make you deportable under federal law
- Immigration fraud or willful misrepresentation
Many removal cases begin with criminal convictions, and the immigration consequences often reach far beyond the criminal sentence.
Whether the person is detained while the case proceeds — and whether a bond hearing is available — turns on which detention statute ICE applies, a question that shifted dramatically in 2025.
Receiving a Notice to Appear does not mean you will be deported. It means the government has started the process. Whether that process ends in your removal or in a grant of relief depends on the facts of your case, the defenses available to you, and the quality of your preparation.
Not all Immigration Court cases are section 240 removal proceedings. A separate procedural track exists for asylum-only proceedings for Visa Waiver Program entrants, which we cover in detail on a dedicated page.
Montana’s Immigration Court: Portland, Video Hearings, and the Ninth Circuit
Montana has no immigration court. Hearings for Montana residents are conducted by the Portland Immigration Court, which serves Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska — an enormous geographic footprint served by a single court.
When I started practicing, an immigration judge would travel periodically to Montana, and hearings were held at the local INS field office. That has not been the case for many years. Today, all hearings are conducted by video conference. The Portland court uses Webex, and you attend from a Montana location: in many cases from our office, sometimes from a government facility, occasionally from home.
Video hearings reduce travel burdens but introduce real complications. Technical failures — dropped connections, audio problems, a session that does not connect properly — can have serious legal consequences if not handled correctly. We address this in the section on in absentia orders below.
The Portland court falls within the Ninth Circuit jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals. This matters practically: the Ninth Circuit has established relatively generous standards for attorney continuances and certain motions, which we use when the situation requires it.
The Notice to Appear: Where Removal Proceedings Begin
Removal proceedings begin when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issues a Notice to Appear (NTA). The NTA is both a charging document and a summons — it states the government’s grounds for removal and directs you to appear in immigration court. Which grounds the government can use matters enormously: the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision on green card holders returning with pending charges shows how the choice between the inadmissibility and deportability tracks can turn on a single trip abroad.
The NTA contains:
- The specific legal grounds the government is alleging for your removal
- Your name and identifying information
- Notice of your obligation to appear and of the consequences of failing to do so
- A statement of your rights in immigration proceedings
Challenging the NTA — and Why We Usually Don’t
It is technically possible to challenge the sufficiency of the NTA itself — whether it was properly served, whether it correctly identifies you, whether it meets the formal requirements the Supreme Court has addressed in several recent decisions (including the requirement that it specify a hearing date and time).
We generally do not lead with this strategy. NTA sufficiency arguments can delay a case, but they rarely improve the outcome. Our practice is to address the NTA through written pleadings and move directly to the relief we are seeking. In almost every case, getting to the substantive hearing efficiently serves the client better than contesting the paperwork.
The Master Calendar Hearing: Your First Court Appearance
The Master Calendar hearing is not a trial. It is an administrative scheduling appearance — the judge uses it to confirm you understand the proceedings, take your pleading on the government’s charges, and set the schedule for your Individual Hearing and any required filings.
Our Approach: Written Pleadings First
Whenever possible, we file written pleadings before the Master Calendar date. This allows the judge to address procedural matters on paper: we formally respond to the charges, note what relief we are seeking, and request the Individual Hearing schedule. In many cases this eliminates the need for a live Master Calendar appearance, or at minimum makes the appearance a formality. It also forces early case analysis, which benefits the client.
When we are retained after a Master Calendar hearing is already scheduled, we appear, address the judge directly if additional time is needed, and make sure the record is built correctly from the start. The Ninth Circuit standard for continuances — when an attorney genuinely needs more time to prepare — is protective of the client’s rights.
Current Timelines in the Portland Court
As of early 2026, the Portland Immigration Court is scheduling Master Calendar hearings approximately one year from filing. Individual Hearings — the actual merits proceeding — are currently being set two to three years out.
The backlog is significant, but it is not uniformly bad for clients. More time means more time to gather documentation, strengthen the application, and build the evidentiary record. The preparation work begins immediately, regardless of when the hearing is scheduled.
Many of our clients also work legally during those years on an Employment Authorization Document – and if you are the employer of someone in this position, our guide on what to do when your employee has an EAD and an immigration court hearing explains why a pending case is not a reason to end the employment.
Building Your Case: The Pre-Hearing Statement
The most important document in removal defense is one most people have never heard of: the pre-hearing statement.
Before the Individual Hearing, we prepare a comprehensive written statement that covers every material fact about the client’s situation and applies the relevant law to each potential ground of relief. Immigration judges work from structured templates that address every element of the applicable legal tests — we build our pre-hearing statements to address each element directly.
The goal is narrow: go into the Individual Hearing with as few contested issues as possible. If DHS counsel and we can agree in writing — before the hearing — that certain facts are established, the hearing becomes a focused examination of the remaining questions rather than a comprehensive review of everything.
A cancellation of removal example: through documentation and stipulation, we might establish that the applicant has been in the United States continuously for over ten years, has maintained good moral character, and has no disqualifying criminal history. The Individual Hearing then turns entirely on one question: does the applicant’s qualifying U.S. citizen family member face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if the applicant is removed? That is a more winnable hearing than one that must re-litigate every element from scratch.
This same strategy applies across relief types — asylum, withholding, adjustment of status, and immigration waivers where criminal history or prior bars are involved. Beyond that list, the Convention Against Torture applies when torture is more likely than not, regardless of the reason for it — and if a green card is the relief you are pursuing, adjustment of status in immigration court explains how a judge decides an I-485 in proceedings. The pre-hearing statement is where cases are won or lost long before the hearing date.
If the person in proceedings was abused by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent, special rule cancellation under VAWA should be screened for early, because eligibility can arrive during the case rather than before it.
The Individual Hearing: Your Day in Court
The Individual Hearing is the merits proceeding. The judge will hear evidence, evaluate legal arguments, and decide whether to grant relief or order removal. It is the closest thing immigration law has to a trial. The most common defensive application for long-term residents is cancellation of removal, which has separate tracks for green-card holders and people without status.
Declaration vs. Live Testimony
Most Immigration Judges today prefer that clients submit a detailed written declaration before the hearing rather than delivering testimony live. This is generally advantageous: a well-prepared declaration allows your account to be presented completely and precisely, without the distortions that can come from direct examination under pressure. You will still be subject to cross-examination on your declaration — but the narrative is set, not improvised.
The right to present live testimony exists, and there are cases where using it is the correct strategy. We evaluate this individually for every client.
If You Miss a Hearing: In Absentia Removal Orders
Missing an immigration court hearing is one of the most serious mistakes a non-citizen can make. If you fail to appear when required, the Immigration Judge will almost certainly enter an in absentia order of removal. That order is immediately final.
Reversing it requires filing a motion to reopen based on one of two grounds:
- Lack of proper notice: you never received proper notice of the hearing
- Exceptional circumstances: something genuinely beyond your control prevented you from appearing
In thirty years of practice, we have reopened in absentia orders with some regularity on notice grounds. Exceptional circumstances is a higher bar. Joint motions to reopen — agreed to by ICE counsel — are available in theory; we have succeeded on that path once in thirty years.
We walk through how a deportation can happen in thirty-six hours when an order has been sitting on the books, and what can still be done about it. For the full legal framework – both rescission lanes, the evidence that wins the motion, and the deadlines – see our guide to in absentia removal orders and when they can be undone.
The Webex Technical Failure Problem
A problem we now see with some regularity: a client logs into their Webex hearing on time, following all the instructions, and reports that the judge never called them. The hearing proceeds without them; an in absentia order is entered.
This is a technical failure of the court’s system, and it is not automatically excused. We have attempted to resolve these situations through administrative correspondence with the court without success. The result is typically an exceptional circumstances motion to reopen, which is contested.
Practical advice if you attend a hearing by video
Take screenshots of every step of your Webex login: the confirmation screen, your connected status, the waiting room, timestamps. If the hearing proceeds without you due to a technical failure, those screenshots are your evidence in a motion to reopen. We advise every client to document this as a matter of routine.
What Judges Actually Look For: Diligence
From our experience with in absentia motions, the factor judges examine most closely is diligence: did you try to determine whether you had a hearing, and did you act promptly once you discovered a problem?
Clients who had a hearing years ago, took no steps to check on their case, and come forward only because something else forced the issue — a pending marriage, a criminal matter, an enforcement encounter — face a difficult motion even when their underlying circumstances are sympathetic. The argument that someone managed to obtain an Employment Authorization Document but somehow missed a hearing notice is hard to make convincingly.
The time to address an in absentia order is immediately upon learning of it, not after exhausting other options.
The Immigration Judge’s Decision
After the Individual Hearing, the judge issues a decision. The form it takes depends on the case:
Oral decision: The judge announces the ruling from the bench immediately after the hearing. Asylum cases frequently end this way — the judge walks through each legal element of the claim, states findings, and issues a ruling.
Written decision: The judge issues a formal written opinion after the hearing. Common in complex cases where the record requires careful analysis.
Reserved decision: The judge indicates how they intend to rule but does not issue the formal order immediately. This occurs most often in cancellation of removal cases where the applicant must wait for a visa priority date to become available before the grant can take effect. Some judges will signal a grant but hold the formal order until the number is current — which may be years away.
For a practical guide to what happens after the immigration judge rules — BIA appeals, motions to reopen and reconsider, stays, and petitions for review — see our companion article.
Appealing the Decision: The 30-Day Cliff
If the judge rules against you — or if DHS appeals a ruling in your favor — there are exactly 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Miss that deadline, and the order becomes final and unappealable. There are virtually no exceptions.
This is not a deadline to evaluate at leisure. If you receive an adverse decision, call your attorney the same day. The analysis of whether and on what grounds to appeal must begin immediately.
Note: under the current administration, DHS has significantly increased the frequency with which it appeals favorable decisions. A grant of relief at the Immigration Court level is not automatically final.
For a full discussion of the BIA appeal process, motions to reconsider, and motions to reopen, see our separate article on BIA Appeals and Motions.
After a Final Removal Order
When a removal order becomes final — because no appeal was filed, appeals were exhausted, or the order was never contested — the legal question is settled. What follows is enforcement.
ICE’s Fugitive Operations program currently treats individuals with unexecuted final orders of removal as a high enforcement priority. The era of the “bag and baggage letter” — in which ICE would request that a person with a final order appear voluntarily to be removed with reasonable time to arrange their affairs — has largely passed.
CBP Home: The Government’s Voluntary Self-Deportation Program
The current administration has introduced a voluntary self-departure program accessible through a mobile app called CBP Home (the renamed and repurposed CBP One app). As of early 2026, roughly 72,000 people have used it.
The program is available to non-criminal undocumented individuals regardless of whether they are in active removal proceedings or have a final order of removal already. Incentives include cost-free travel arranged within approximately 21 days, a $2,600 exit bonus paid upon arrival in the home country, and forgiveness of any outstanding failure-to-depart fines. ICE will also deprioritize participants for arrest and enforcement while their departure is being arranged.
For those with a pending immigration court case, DHS states it will file a motion to dismiss the proceedings upon participation.
Important legal distinctions to understand before considering this option:
- CBP Home departure is explicitly NOT voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Participants do not receive the legal benefits associated with a formal voluntary departure grant from an Immigration Judge.
- For those with a final order of removal, departure through CBP Home constitutes self-removal and execution of the outstanding order — the order is not erased.
- If you have a pending asylum application, leaving the United States while the application is pending is generally treated as abandonment of the claim.
- The program offers no preference or expedited processing for future visa applications or reentry.
Consult before you act
DHS itself recommends that potential CBP Home participants consult with an immigration attorney before submitting an intent to depart. The legal consequences of using this program vary significantly depending on your individual circumstances, and they are not always reversible. If you are considering this option, call us first. If you are weighing this because your asylum claim may not survive, our page on voluntary departure and the CBP Home program walks through both exit routes, what each one costs, and who should not use either.
A Note on Attorney Representation — and When We Must Withdraw
You have the right to retain counsel in removal proceedings. You do not have the right to a government-appointed attorney if you cannot afford one. The quality of your representation depends entirely on the resources you can bring to your defense — which is a strong argument for acting early, before a case becomes a crisis.
We take cases we believe we can work on conscientiously. On rare occasions, we have been required to withdraw from active cases. This has not been due to any change in our assessment of the merits — it has been due to a client’s failure to cooperate with the preparation process after clear deadlines. Removal defense requires your active participation: gathering documents, providing information, attending preparation sessions, and meeting filing deadlines. Clients who disengage in the middle of a case put their own outcomes at serious risk.
Acting Early Matters More Than Anything Else
Over nearly three decades of removal defense practice, the pattern is consistent: clients who come to us early — at the NTA, not at the eve of a hearing — have the most options and the best outcomes. The timeline to an Individual Hearing is long. But the work of building a case begins immediately, because evidence ages, witnesses become unavailable, and documentation from other countries takes time to assemble.
If you have received a Notice to Appear, or if you believe you may be subject to removal proceedings, contact Immigration Law of Montana. A consultation will clarify your legal position, identify the options available to you, and give you a realistic picture of what the next steps look like for your specific situation.
This article provides general information about removal proceedings and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently. For advice about your particular situation, consult with an experienced immigration attorney. Everything filed in your case becomes part of the Record of Proceedings, which you can request at any time — our immigration court records guide explains each route.
