NEW YORK (AP) – A federal appeals court has taken the unusual step of recommending that an immigration appeals board review all pending cases of an immigration judge whose actions have drawn sharp criticism in the past.

The move Wednesday by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a notice sent Friday that oral arguments will no longer be routinely scheduled in asylum cases appear aimed at relieving a crush of immigration cases that have clogged federal appeals courts nationwide.

The 2nd Circuit appeals court said it would “improve judicial efficiency” if the Board of Immigration Appeals “closely re-examined all” cases still on appeal from Judge Jeffrey S. Chase.

Lawyers who appeal rulings from an immigration judge first stop at the BIA before the cases advance to the federal appeals court. Tightened immigration policies over the last 15 years have brought an avalanche of cases, overwhelming immigration judges who are pressured to make decisions more quickly. As a result, more appeals are being filed.

The federal appeals court did not appear to be ordering the BIA to review rulings by Mr. Chase, but was suggesting it do so “having in mind our previously expressed concerns.”

In the past, three-judge panels of the appeals court in Manhattan had accused Chase of “pervasive bias and hostility,” “combative and insulting language” and of intemperate remarks which “demean the witness, demean the government, and demean the judicial system.”

On Wednesday, the appeals court ordered Chase removed from an asylum case brought by Aboubacar Ba, a Mauritanian citizen, after Mr. Chase said Ba failed to file for asylum within the required year of his arrival when a stamp on his application clearly showed otherwise.

The appeals court accused Mr. Chase of “a plethora of errors and omissions” in his 2004 written opinion on the case and said a review of the transcript of a hearing revealed a tone consistent with previous proceedings by Mr. Chase that have drawn rebuke.

The court said it found it “disturbing” that Chase seemed to intrude upon the attorney-client privilege in one exchange in which he asked Ba if he lied to his attorney, “yes or no?”

The appeals panel said that regardless of the answer, it was inconceivable that Chase, “as a judge and lawyer, would not know the impropriety of that question.”

Thomas V. Massucci, who argued on Ba’s behalf before the 2nd Circuit, said he had never heard of the appeals court taking the kind of action against a judge that it was recommending against Mr. Chase, a review he said would likely involve scores of immigration cases from Chase.

“There are probably hundreds of these cases in the pipeline,” Mr. Massucci said.

He said immigration lawyers generally appreciate any pressure put on the Board of Immigration Appeals to process cases more thoughtfully. In Mr. Ba’s case, the BIA affirmed Mr. Chase’s decision without issuing an opinion.

Mr. Massucci said immigration lawyers have found Mr. Chase somewhat chastened and less aggressive since he had been sharply criticized by the appeals court last year in several cases.

A message left with the immigration court in Manhattan for comment was not returned. Immigration judges, who work for the Justice Department and not the federal judicial branch, are not permitted by department rules to speak with reporters.

A message left with executives for the Board of Immigration Appeals in Falls Church, Va., also was not immediately returned.

In an October story, The New York Times said Mr. Chase had won awards as a human rights advocate before he was appointed in 1995 to the immigration bench, where 218 immigration judges process 350,000 cases annually. In New York City alone, 27 immigration judges handle 20,000 cases a year, the Times said.

Meanwhile, the 2nd Circuit issued an order late Friday inviting public comment on a policy it was enacting to no longer routinely schedule asylum cases for oral argument. It said it would move an asylum case to the public oral argument calendar only if parties in the case request it. The policy is currently temporary but the court intends to make it permanent.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court listens to oral arguments by lawyers in four to five cases on most days the Manhattan courthouse is open. Usually, written opinions are issued weeks or months later. Increasingly, as the number of immigration has risen, the appeals court has had to have two separate panels operating on the same day to deal with the overall crush.