Featured Issue: Representing Clients Before ICE
This resource page combines resources for attorneys representing clients before ICE. For information about why AILA is calling for the reduction and phasing out of immigration detention, please see our Featured Issue Page: Immigration Detention and Alternatives to Detention.
Quick Links
- Seeking Stays of Removal
- AILA Practice Pointers and Alerts (continually updated)
- Practice Advisory: Representing Detained Clients in the Virtual Landscape
- Practice Pointer: How to Locate Clients Apprehended by ICE
- Practice Pointer: Preparing for an Order of Supervision Appointment with ICE-ERO
- AILA ICE Liaison Agenda and Meeting Minutes
Communicating with OPLA, ERO, and CROs
The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) includes 1300 attorneys who represent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in immigration removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). OPLA litigates all removal cases as well as provides legal counsel to ICE personnel. At present, there are 25 field locations throughout the United States.
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) manages all aspects of immigration enforcement from arrest, detention, and removal. ERO has 24 field office locations. ERO also manages an “alternative to detention” program that relies almost exclusively on the “Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP)” to monitor individuals in removal proceedings.
Since 2016, ICE has had an Office of Partnership and Engagement (formerly Office of Community Engagement) to be a link between the agency and stakeholders. As part of this office, Community Relations Officers (CROS) are assigned to every field office to work with local stakeholders such as attorneys and nonprofit organizations.
*Headquarters does not provide direct contact numbers or emails for individual employees.* (AILA Liaison Meeting with ICE on April 26, 2023)(AILA Doc. No. 23033004). However, attorneys can contact Chapter Local ICE Liaisons as they may have this information provided to them via local liaison engagement.
- DHS/ICE/OPLA Chief Counsel Contact Information [last updated in 2024, this list no longer appears on ICE.gov as of 1/27/25]
- Contact Information for Local OPLA Offices [last updated in 2024, this information no longer appears on ICE.gov as of 1/27/25]
- ERO Field Offices Contact Information*
- OPE Community Relations Officers
- ICE Check-In Scheduling Website
- ICE Online Change of Address Website
Latest on Enforcement Priorities & Prosecutorial Discretion
Executive Order 14159 (90 FR 8443, 1/29/25) directs DHS to set priorities that protect the public safety and national security interests of the American people, including by ensuring the successful enforcement of final orders of removal, enforcement of the INA and other Federal laws related to the illegal entry and unlawful presence of [noncitizens] in the United States and the enforcement of the purposes of this order. Given the January 25, 2025, confirmation of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, a memorandum detailing enforcement priorities may be issued in the coming weeks.
An unpublished ICE memo from acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello entitled “Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or near Courthouses” makes reference to targeted noncitizens and includes:
- National security or public safety threats;
- Those with criminal convictions;
- Gang members;
- Those who have been ordered removed from the United States but have failed to depart; and/or
- Those who have re-entered the country illegally after being removed.
Procedures and email inboxes created under the Biden Administration to request Prosecutorial Discretion no longer appear on the ICE website. AILA members are encouraged to review current DOJ regulations entitled “Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings” for alternative basis for seeking termination or administrative closure.
Access to Counsel
- ERO eFile:
- An online system developed to electronically file G-28s with ERO. Attorneys and accredited representatives may register for ERO eFile accounts and may also sponsor law students and law graduates who work under their supervision. See AILA’s practice alert (AILA Doc. No. 24051506) for more information.
- ICE Attorney Information and Resources Page
- AILA Practice Alert: Updates to the ICE Attorney Information and Resource Page
Filing Administrative Complaints on Behalf of Detained and Formerly Detained Clients
- Online Intake Form for the Detention Ombudsman (myOIDO)
- Available for complaints for issues in ICE and CBP Custody nationwide, including to submit complaints about access to counsel problems on behalf of currently or previously detained clients.
- Online Complaint Form for DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL)
- Oversight of Immigration Detention: An Overview - May 16, 2022
(provides a list of agencies with which attorneys may file administrative complaints of detention center violations) - Immigration Judge Complaint Toolkit – August 31, 2022
- Practice Alert: Template for CRCL Complaint Regarding Failures to Provide Language Access – July 16, 2021
Selected ICE Policies and Current Status
For comprehensive comparison of current and prior ICE policies, please review the “Immigration Policy Tracker (IPTP).” The IPTP is a project of Professor Lucas Guttentag working with teams of Stanford and Yale law students and leading national immigration experts.
| Pre Jan 20, 2025 Status | Current Status |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Browse the Featured Issue: Representing Clients Before ICE collection
DOJ 60-Day Notice of Revision and Extension of Forms EOIR-42A and EOIR-42B
DOJ notice of revision and extension of Form EOIR-42A, Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents and Form EOIR-42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents. Comments are due 10/19/26. (91 FR 53897, 8/20/26)
Call for Examples: EOIR Notice Issues
The EOIR committee is requesting AILA Members provide examples of delays in receiving notice (or instances of not receiving notice) to further illustrate current issues with notice from EOIR.
BIA Holds That Noncitizens May File Only One Motion to Reopen and That Equitable Tolling Does Not Apply to the Number Bar
The BIA held a noncitizen may file only one motion to reopen, whether with the immigration court or the BIA, subject to the statutory exception for battered spouses, children, and parents, and equitable tolling does not apply to the number bar. Matter of M–M–L–J–, 29 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2026)
NPR: ICE Detained a Venezuelan Soccer Pro. His Case Shows the Immigration Backlog Crisis
Homero Calderón was arrested by ICE despite having pending applications with USCIS. AILA’s Shev Dalal-Dheini called his case “symbolic of so many other individuals who are stuck in processing backlogs … individuals doing the right thing by filing their applications timely.”
CA4 Holds That Pursuing an I-601A Provisional Waiver Does Not Shield Noncitizens from Arrest, Detention, or Removal
The court held that provisional waiver regulations do not shield noncitizens from removal while pursuing I-601A waivers, and vacated summary judgment because the record did not show the government used the process to target plaintiffs for removal. (Sanchez, et al. v. Mullin, et al., 8/14/26)
BIA Holds That 10-Day Pre-Hearing Period Is the Only Statutory or Regulatory Time Requirement Needed to Safeguard Privilege of Counsel
The BIA held that the only statutory or regulatory time requirement to safeguard a noncitizen’s privilege of counsel is that the first hearing not occur earlier than 10 days after service of the Notice to Appear (NTA) under INA §239(b)(1). Matter of A–K–R–, 29 I&N Dec. 839 (BIA 2026)
CA3 Holds That a Removal Stay Must Be Vacated Where Petitioner Can No Longer Meet the Nken Factors on Ongoing Review
The court held that a stay of removal must be vacated where the petitioner can no longer carry his burden on the four factors in Nken v. Holder, and that his likelihood of success is the product of the likelihood on each independent issue. (Aristy-Rosa v. Att’y Gen., 8/14/26)
CA8 Finds Substantial Evidence Supported No Nexus Between Domestic Abuse and Guatemalan Petitioner’s Proposed Social Groups
The court held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief because the record did not compel a finding that petitioner’s abuse was on account of a proposed social group or that Guatemala would acquiesce in torture. (Matias-Pablo v. Blanche, 8/14/26)
CA9 Holds That Former Salvadoran Police Officer Failed to Show Persecution Was on Account of His Former Police Status
The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the petitioner, a former Salvadoran police officer, failed to establish a nexus to his status as a former officer, because all the threats he received occurred while he was still active. (Gonzalez-Argueta v. Blanche, 8/13/26)
BIA Holds That Georgia Sentence “Clarification” Order Was Invalid for Immigration Purposes
The BIA held that a Georgia state court sentence “clarification” order issued by a different judge more than six years after the sentencing order and after respondent had been placed into removal proceedings was not valid for immigration purposes. Matter of Boye, 29 I&N Dec. 826 (BIA 2026)
Think Immigration: Prepping Paralegals in the Current Immigration Law Environment
AILA Paralegals Conference Chair Mo Goldman details the challenges in the current immigration law environment as major policy changes take effect, writing that "the requisites are becoming more stringent, and the chances of rejected filings or denials have increased exponentially."
CA1 Holds That Conviction for Witness Retaliation in New Hampshire Was Not an Aggravated Felony Relating to Obstruction of Justice
The court held that a New Hampshire conviction for witness retaliation was not an aggravated felony offense relating to obstruction of justice under INA §101(a)(43)(S), so it did not render petitioner removable as an aggravated felon under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(iii). (Bangs v. Blanche, 8/11/26)
CA4 Holds That INA §242(b)(1)’s 30-Day Petition for Review Deadline Is Subject to Equitable Tolling
The court held that INA §242(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline is subject to equitable tolling, and found that the BIA erred in its political opinion and particular social group (PSG) analyses and abused its discretion in denying CAT relief. (Navarro Cerritos v. Blanche, 8/11/26)
Practice Alert: Federal Court Restores Key Protections for VAWA, U, and T Petitioners Facing ICE Detention
A federal court decision has temporarily restored important protections from arrest, detention, and removal for certain immigrant survivors with pending VAWA self-petitions, and U and T visa petitions.
SAVE and E-Verify Update on TPS for Somalia
SAVE and E-Verify issued updates on EADs for TPS-holders from Somalia. EADs issued under this TPS designation remain valid and are extended. SAVE and E-Verify will display an expiration date of 8/12/26. The updates supersede prior guidance.
CA4 Holds That Nexus Analysis Must Focus on Why Persecutor Threatened Petitioner, Not Another Person
The court held that the agency legally erred by focusing on why the persecutor targeted her former partner rather than why he threatened her, and that the record compelled the conclusion that the nexus requirement was met. (Orellana-Ramos v. Blanche, 8/10/26)
CA9 Holds That Oregon Conviction for Using a Child in Display of Sexually Explicit Content Is Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse
The court held that the Mexican petitioner’s Oregon conviction for using a child in a display of sexually explicit content was categorically a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment, rendering him removable under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i). (Gonzalez-Godinez v. Blanche, 8/10/26)
CA9 Finds Petitioner’s California Conviction for Distributing Harmful Matter to Minor Was Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse
The court held that the Mexican petitioner’s conviction under California Penal Code §288.2(b) for distributing harmful matter to a minor to seduce that minor was categorically a crime of child abuse under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) barring cancellation of removal. (Adame Garcia v. Blanche, 8/10/26)
CA1 Holds Substantial Evidence Supports No Nexus Where Robberies Were for Financial Gain and Threats Were Revenge
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that no protected ground was a reason for petitioner’s harm, where robberies were for financial gain and threats were revenge, and thus upheld the denial of asylum and related claims. (Monzon Guzman v. Blanche, 8/7/26)
CA6 Holds That Serious-Nonpolitical-Crime Bar’s “Serious Reasons for Believing” Standard Requires Only Probable Cause
The court held that the serious-nonpolitical-crime bar’s “serious reasons for believing” standard requires only probable cause, and that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the government met its burden of establishing probable cause. (Spindola v. Blanche, 8/7/26)
EOIR Issues Fact Sheet on Immigration Judge Training
EOIR issued a fact sheet on the training program for immigration judges. The initial training is five weeks long, with additional ongoing training.
New Edition of Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook Released by AILA
AILA is proud to release the 20th edition of Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook, the must-have resource filled with expert guidance helping readers navigate the labyrinthine U.S. immigration laws, including recent Supreme Court rulings and their impact.
CA5 Holds That Adverse Credibility Findings on Employment and Imprisonment as to Afghan Petitioner Were Unsupported
The court held that the agency’s adverse credibility finding as to the Afghan petitioner’s employment history and prior imprisonment was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the agency failed to meaningfully consider key evidence supporting his claims. (Eqbal v. Blanche, 8/6/26)
CA8 Holds That Departure Bar Is Invalid for Statutory Motions to Reopen and Rejects BIA’s Jurisdictional Limitation
The court held the departure bar regulation, 8 CFR §1003.2(d), conflicts with the motion to reopen statute, INA §240(c)(7), and thus found that the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s statutory motion to reopen and in holding it lacked jurisdiction. (Lacsina v. Blanche, 8/6/26)
Client Flyers
AILA offers concise educational flyers for members to share with their clients or prospective clients to inform them about a wide range of pertinent immigration law issues. Customizable versions are available.