This article was reported by New Jersey Monitor, a nonprofit publishing partner of NJ Spotlight News.
A New Jersey judge recently criticized for his unsympathetic comments to a woman who said she was raped is now deciding immigration cases for people in detention, including victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
The news has attorneys for some migrants facing deportation concerned that the judge, Thomas Shusted Jr., could exacerbate what they say is a dire situation for their clients, who are routinely denied bond in New Jersey immigration courts.
“I would be very concerned about how he would treat my client and whether or not he would really take his or her fears and concerns seriously,” said Lauren Anselowitz, an immigration attorney who often argues cases in Elizabeth and Newark immigration courts.
Adriana Mitchell, a Philadelphia-based immigration attorney who appeared before Shusted soon after he joined the immigration court bench, said she plans to file motions asking for his recusal from any asylum case involving a survivor of domestic violence or an applicant seeking a visa reserved for human trafficking victims.
“I don’t feel he should be allowed to be there,” Mitchell said.
Appellate panel
The Trump administration last month named Shusted, who served as a Superior Court judge in Camden County for more than a decade, as an immigration judge for Elizabeth Immigration Court, where he decides whether detained immigrants can be released on bond during deportation proceedings. He previously served as a Superior Court judge in Camden County for more than a decade.
Shusted’s appointment came about two weeks after he was taken to task by a three-judge New Jersey appellate panel over his comments to a woman who had sought a restraining order against a man she accused of rape. Shusted disregarded the interests of the woman in the case and made “troubling” remarks to the man, the panel said.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice’s immigration review office did not respond to a request for comment.
Shusted was appointedby then-Gov. Chris Christie in 2013. Shusted was presiding judge of the Special Civil Part and was assigned statewide to oversee the Sexually Violent Predatory Docket. Prior to that, he was in private practice. The Department of Justice’s biography of Shusted does not mention a retirement before taking the bench as an immigration judge.
‘Stop talking’
Mitchell said she appeared before Shusted during one of his first days at Elizabeth Immigration Court. The judge denied bond in every case on the docket that day, she said, including for her client, a man from the Dominican Republic with no criminal history who is married to a U.S. citizen and has a pending green card application. Her client came to the United States three years ago seeking asylum after he was shot by the Dominican police.
Shusted sided with a prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who argued that the man’s ties to the community were “very limited” and he posed a flight risk because he was an “illegal entrant into the United States not very long ago,” according to a transcript of the June 11 hearing.
“What’s the worst they can do, revoke my citizenship? Good luck with that. I still have a ton of law school loans.” — Attorney Adriana Mitchell
Mitchell pressed Shusted on his reasoning, pointing to her client’s pending green card application. He cut her off.
“Ma’am, that’s enough. If you disagree with the decision, I’m giving the appeal date is July 6th,” Shusted said.
“I just want to make the record clear, Your Honor,” Mitchell said, as the two began talking over each other again.
“Ma’am, pardon me for interrupting, all right? Stop talking,” he said.
Mitchell said she had felt hopeful for her client when she learned he’d be in front of a judge with a background in criminal cases. Now, though, she plans to file a formal complaint against him with the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge within the Department of Justice.
“I don’t give a f— as long as he’s off the bench. He shouldn’t be there. I’m not afraid. I’ll say anything,” said Mitchell, who immigrated from Romania 20 years ago. “What’s the worst they can do, revoke my citizenship? Good luck with that. I still have a ton of law school loans.”
Mitchell said she’s particularly concerned about how Shusted will handle cases brought by victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. Those are the types of victims, she said, that the appellate court accused Shusted of failing to protect.
He got a ‘break’
The restraining order case that earned Shusted the appellate court’s criticism came before him in May 2025. Court records did not identify either party in the case.
A female college student sought a protective order against a man, a fellow college student, after three dates. He raped her and choked her several times during the act, she said. Shusted said he found the woman “inherently believable” and “more credible” than the man, who said no rape occurred. The judge, though, denied her bid for a restraining order because he said the two had no history of domestic violence between them.
The appellate court last month reversed that decision, and took issue with Shusted ‘s comments to the man.
“Do you understand the break you got today?” the judge told the man, in the presence of the woman who alleged he had raped her.
“That comment is troubling if for no other reason than it might lead plaintiff to believe that the court’s decision was based on defendant’s best interests, rather than hers,” the appellate ruling says, adding that Shusted’s remark “falls short of treating a sexual assault victim with fairness, compassion and respect.”
The appeals court said that “once the trial court made its credibility findings, credited plaintiff’s testimony, found that defendant committed forcible acquaintance rape and strangled the victim, and acknowledged the parties might run into each other at school,” the need for a restraining order was “self-evident.” The panel reversed Shusted’s ruling and returned the case to Superior Court to issue the restraining order.
Because of the appellate ruling, Anselowitz said, she shares Mitchell’s reservations about how Shusted will handle cases brought by migrants who are seeking asylum because they are victims of domestic violence and human trafficking.
Anselowitz noted that because the appellate decision came out about two weeks before Shusted’s appointment was announced, the U.S. Department of Justice likely did not know about his comments in the restraining order case as he was being hired.
Typically, new immigration judges serve a two-year probationary period. Individual judges like Shusted are not reflective of all judges in immigration court, Anselowitz added. And while his comment “turns my stomach,” it may not be reflective of his entire career and who he is as a person, she said.
