Stipulated Removal

Stipulated removal is a process by which a respondent in immigration court agrees to waive their right to a full hearing and consents to a removal order. Essentially, the respondent and the government reach an agreement that the person will be ordered removed without contesting the charges or seeking relief before an immigration judge.

Stipulated removal orders must be reviewed and approved by an immigration judge to ensure that the respondent's waiver is knowing and voluntary. The judge typically confirms on the record that the respondent understands the consequences of agreeing to removal — including the re-entry bars and the waiver of any claims to relief — and that no one has coerced or pressured the person into the agreement.

There are several reasons a respondent might agree to stipulated removal. For detained individuals, it offers a way to leave custody more quickly rather than waiting weeks or months for a hearing. Some respondents have no viable claims to relief and prefer to be removed quickly so they can return to their families abroad. In some cases, the government may agree to favorable conditions — such as allowing voluntary departure rather than a formal removal order, or agreeing not to pursue criminal charges.

However, stipulated removal has been criticized, particularly when involving detained individuals who lack legal representation. Without an attorney to explain the consequences and evaluate potential claims to relief, respondents may unknowingly waive valid defenses to removal. Pro se respondents may not understand that they could qualify for asylum, cancellation of removal, or other forms of protection.

The use of stipulated removal has varied across administrations and jurisdictions. Some courts and ICE offices rely on it heavily as a docket management tool, while others use it sparingly. Advocates have pushed for stronger safeguards to ensure that stipulated removals are truly voluntary and informed.