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
CA5 Holds That BIA Deprived Petitioner of Due Process by Violating Its Own Regulations
The court held that the BIA violated 8 CFR §1003.1(d)(3)(i) and (iv) by remanding the petitioner’s case sua sponte to the IJ for factual findings that the IJ had already made, rather than reviewing the IJ’s findings for clear error as required. (Francois v. Garland, 10/24/24)
CA6 Concludes That BIA Engaged in Reasoned Decision-Making in Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen
The court held that the BIA did not err in finding that the petitioner had failed to show that his removal to Mexico would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to one of his two U.S. citizen children, as required under INA §240A(b)(1)(D). (Galvez-Bravo v. Garland, 10/23/24)
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim Where M-18 Gang Made Specific and Menacing Death Threat Against 14-Year-Old Petitioner
The court held that the petitioners, a mother and her son, established that they suffered harm rising to the level of persecution, finding that members of the M-18 gang who murdered the son’s father were willing and capable of murdering the petitioners. (Corpeno-Romero v. Garland, 10/22/24)
AILA Amicus Brief Addresses Board's Definition of the "Child abuse, Child Neglect, and Child Abandonment" Ground for Removability
AILA's brief argued that the Board's definition of the "child abuse, child neglect, and child abandonment" ground for removability leads to unpredictable classifications of state offenses and harms families by separating generally caring and responsible parents from their children.
CA1 Finds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination as to Former Bodyguard in Guatemala Was Supported by Substantial Evidence
The court upheld the denial of asylum as to the Guatemalan petitioner, who formerly worked as a bodyguard for a congressman and feared returning to Guatemala because he believed that he would be the target of extortions and threats by gang members. (Garcia Oliva v. Garland, 10/21/24)
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial to Ecuadorian Business Owner Subjected to Extortion Attempts and Death Threats
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that petitioner, the owner of a taxi company in Ecuador who had been targeted in extortion attempts by gang members and received death threats, failed to show past or future persecution. (Vargas-Salazar v. Garland, 10/17/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Special Rule Cancellation under NACARA to Salvadoran Petitioner
The court upheld the denial of petitioner’s special rule cancellation of removal application under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), finding he had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to himself or his spouse. (Figueroa v. Garland, 10/17/24)
CA9 Rescinds In Absentia Removal Order Where Petitioner Was Late for Hearing Due to Encountering Two Major Car Accidents
Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court held that the facts of the case amounted to exceptional circumstances warranting reopening of petitioner’s in absentia removal order and those of her minor children under INA §240(b)(5)(C)(i). (Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland, 10/17/24)
DHS 60-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Form 405
DHS 60-day notice and request for comments on Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) Intake Form, DHS Form 405. Revisions are based on usability testing recommendations. Comments are due by 12/16/24. (89 FR 83509, 10/16/24)
Immigration-Related Agency Updates Related to Hurricane Milton
We know that Hurricane Milton is on many of your minds. Here is a round-up of current agency information related to how they might handle the aftermath.
Practice Pointer: BIA Holds IJs Can Amend Noncompliant NTAs in Matter of R-T-P-
AILA provides a practice alert on the implications of Matter of R–T–P–, the latest decision dealing with the impacts of DHS’s issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) that do not contain statutorily required information.
Brennan Center: The Alien Enemies Act, Explained
The Brennan Center for Justice provides an explainer on the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798, noting, "This detention and deportation power poses an alarming risk of abuse and rights violations in both wartime and peacetime."
CA9 Finds Mexican Petitioner Attacked in Home Invasion by Cartel Members Suffered Past Persecution
The court held that the harms the petitioner and her family had suffered in Mexico, including murder, physical assault, kidnapping, and a home invasion during which petitioner was beaten unconscious, clearly rose to the level of past persecution. (Meza Diaz v. Bondi, 10/8/24, amended 2/25/25)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Salvadoran Petitioner Threatened by MS-13 Gang
The court held that petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Salvadoran men who resist gang recruitment” was not valid, and found that the IJ did not err in concluding that he had not made a sufficient nexus showing as to his other two PSGs. (Alvarado-Reyes v. Garland, 10/7/24)
Policy Brief: Analysis of Proclamation and Interim Final Rule on “Securing the Border”
President Biden signed a proclamation, and the Administration issued an Interim Final Rule as well as a Final Rule, “Securing the Border,” relying in part on the authority in INA 212(f) that will effectively bar access to asylum for most people arriving between ports of entry when in effect.
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim Where BIA Misapplied Matter of R–K–K– and Erred in Internal Relocation Analysis
Granting the petition for review of the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum, the court held that the BIA erred by misapplying Matter of R–K–K– in making its adverse credibility determination, and also erred in its internal relocation analysis. (Singh v. Garland, 10/4/24)
American Immigration Council Special Report: Mass Deportation
The American Immigration Council provides an estimate of the fiscal and economic cost should the government deport the roughly 11 million people who, as of 2022, lacked permanent legal status and faced the possibility of removal.
Practice Alert: EOIR Issues Memo on NTAs Filed by DHS
AILA provided a practice alert after EOIR issued a memorandum with updated guidance on NTAs filed by DHS. This memo cancels a 2018 memo issued by former EOIR Director James R. McHenry, III. The 2024 memo is currently in effect.
Biden Administration Cements Harmful Asylum Restrictions
AILA President Kelli Stump and Executive Director Ben Johnson respond to the Biden Administration’s codification of harmful policies that are already undermining U.S. asylum law and denying fair access to humanitarian protection for vulnerable individuals and families.
Points of Contact for Credible Fear Interviews in CBP Custody
DHS provided a “Points of Contact for Credible Fear Interviews in CBP Custody” spreadsheet. This includes contacts for Border Patrol, USCIS Asylum, and EOIR.
Venue Challenges in APA Immigration Cases
NILA created a practice alert discussing the venue choices a plaintiff has under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) when challenging a decision or delay in decision-making by USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as considerations that inform venue selections.
CRS Provides FAQs on Credible Fear and Defensive Asylum Processes
The CRS report addresses FAQs about credible fear and asylum, including those related to expedited and formal removal processes; credible fear screening processes, criteria, and legislative history; procedural protections; and data regarding credible fear and asylum outcomes.
BIA Holds That Respondent’s Convictions for Retail Theft in Pennsylvania Were Not Categorically CIMTs
The BIA held that the respondent’s convictions for retail theft in Pennsylvania were categorically not for crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) because the statute does not require an intent to permanently deprive the victim of property. Matter of Thakker, 28 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2024)
CA6 Finds BIA Erred in Making No-Nexus Determination with Regard to Guatemalan Petitioners’ Family Membership PSG
The court held that the BIA erred in concluding that the petitioners had failed to establish a sufficient nexus between their persecution and their family membership, and thus vacated the denial of their asylum and withholding of removal claims. (Mazariegos-Rodas, et al. v. Garland, 9/20/24)
CA5 Holds That Petitioner’s Louisiana Conviction for Accessory After the Fact to Armed Robbery with a Firearm Was Not an Aggravated Felony
The court held that Louisiana’s accessory-after-the-fact statute was not a categorical match for the generic federal offense of obstruction of justice, and was thus not an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(S) that would permit expedited removal. (Lopez Orellana v. Garland, 9/18/24)