The publication of a court recording has focused attention on how immigration adjudication treats claims by LGBTQ+ people. In a clip obtained by a national outlet, an immigration judge in southern New Mexico spent nearly three hours questioning a gay Iranian man who said he fled the country because homosexual conduct is criminalized and can be punishable by death in Iran. The exchange alarmed his lawyer and civil rights advocates, who argue that the line of questioning displayed a limited understanding of the ways people protect themselves in hostile, criminalizing environments. The man and his partner are among two Iranian asylum seekers who say they face lethal risk if returned.
What occurred during the hearing
At issue in the recording is Immigration Judge Samuel Williams, who sits at the Otero detention court. Williams, appointed to the immigration bench in late 2026, previously worked as a prosecutor and military attorney and — according to public records reviewed by advocates — had no documented background in specialized immigration work before taking the post. The detained applicant initially represented himself before later securing counsel. Both men remain in detention but have won procedural protections: one through a stay of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals and the other through federal court intervention, which allow their appeals to move forward without immediate deportation.
Lines of questioning and the applicant’s account
During the spring 2026 hearing, the judge pressed the applicant on intimate details about his marriage, living arrangements, and who had been told about his sexual orientation. Questions ranged from whether the man and his partner “y’all all sleep in the same room?” to whether anyone besides his wife knew he was gay. The applicant, speaking through an interpreter, explained that secrecy was not elective but essential for survival, that his wife was aware and that disclosure beyond that circle could have led to arrest or worse. He recounted being detained by Iranian authorities after being discovered with his partner and described physical abuse and ongoing fear of further punishment. Despite this testimony, the judge repeatedly returned to questions about demonstrable injury and precise formulations of events, at one point asking, “So, you had no physical injuries?” Advocates warn that an emphasis on visible wounds can compress the legal understanding of persecution and disregard forms of coercion, psychological harm, and credible threats.
Legal standards, credibility, and advocacy concerns
Lawyers who handle LGBTQ+ asylum cases emphasize that credibility is pivotal in adjudications but must be contextualized. Attorney Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council called the Iranians’ story a “textbook” asylum claim and said the recording reveals an implicit expectation that applicants prove sexual orientation in ways that ignore the real danger of disclosure. Practitioners have flagged patterns in which detailed, identity-focused questioning appears to be applied unevenly. Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres of the American Immigration Lawyers Association described what she sees as a recurring bias that can arise when judges rely on demeanor and plausibility without understanding how people conceal relationships to survive. In a separate matter Wolf cited, a judge questioned whether repeated sexual assaults described by a South American client could have been consensual, language she characterized as profoundly disturbing.
Interpreter access and procedural limits
Advocates also point to language access as a systemic barrier. Wolf described a Moroccan client who speaks a rare regional tongue and has waited more than a year for an asylum hearing because courts could not secure a qualified interpreter, while the court at times suggested proceeding with an interpreter in another language and even accused the client of “pretending” not to understand. Dojaquez-Torres said similar pressures emerge for people who speak Indigenous languages rather than Spanish, with judges sometimes asking them to choose between delaying proceedings or using a less familiar language. Complicating remedies, immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department rather than the independent federal judiciary, and advocates say options for addressing alleged bias are limited; remands often return cases to the same judge for further proceedings.
Detention conditions and broader policy implications
Beyond courtroom dynamics, experts point to the hostile environment inside detention facilities. A 2026 report by a consortium of advocacy organizations documented high rates of physical and sexual violence against LGBTQ+ people in custody, frequent use of solitary confinement, and systemic obstacles to medical care. Jeff Migliozzi of Freedom for Immigrants told reporters that discrimination and abuse in detention are common and that oversight has become “virtually nonexistent.” At the same time, broader policies such as third-country deportations — the practice of sending migrants to countries where they are not citizens — have drawn criticism for exposing asylum seekers to further risk if transferred to places that lack ties or safety. Advocates warn that these structural and procedural realities combine to raise stakes for people who say they face death if returned to their home countries.
Calls for change
Defense attorneys and human rights groups urge reforms including enhanced training for judges on LGBTQ+ vulnerability and concealment strategies, guaranteed access to qualified interpreters in the correct languages, and stronger independent oversight of immigration adjudication. The Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to discuss specific decision-making, with spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly noting that EOIR investigates credible complaints but does not disclose outcomes; the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. Meanwhile, the two Iranian men remain in detention under procedural stays as their appeals proceed, and advocates say the recording underscores the need for courts to apply credibility standards that reflect how people survive under threat rather than insisting on disclosures that could never safely have been made in their home countries.