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
CRCL Issues Recommendations to CBP and ICE Concerning Family Separation
CRCL conducted investigations reviewing allegations that CBP and ICE violated the civil rights or civil liberties of family members who were separated after crossing the U.S. border. CRCL recommendations are broad and address implementation of policies, procedures, and documentation.
CA3 Defers to BIA’s Finding That Stop-Time Rule Does Not Truncate Good Moral Character Window
The court deferred to the BIA’s interpretation that the stop-time rule does not apply to the time period during which a noncitizen must exhibit good moral character, and upheld the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal to the petitioner. (Mejia-Castanon v. Att’y Gen., 7/25/19)
CA9 Says INA §275(a)(2) Does Not Apply to Noncitizen Who Crosses into United States at Non-Designated Time or Place
The court held that, in order to convict a defendant under INA §275(a)(2), the government must prove that the noncitizen’s criminal conduct occurred at a port of entry that is open for inspection. (United States v. Corrales-Vazquez, 7/24/19)
ICE Releases Memo on Implementation of July 2019 Designation of Individuals Subject to Expedited Removal
ICE released guidance about the implementation of the expansion of expedited removal, indicating that it may begin applying expanded expedited removal on 9/1/19. It was filed by government counsel as part of the Make the Road NY v. McAleenan lawsuit challenging this expansion.
CA5 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Provided a Guatemalan Address for Notice Purposes
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen her in absentia removal order, finding that it was not sufficient for the petitioner to provide a Guatemalan address to the immigration court pursuant to INA §239(a)(1)(F)(i). (Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 7/23/19)
CA1 Upholds BIA’s Refusal to Reopen Removal Proceedings of Lesbian Ugandan Petitioner
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the lesbian Ugandan petitioner’s motion to reopen, finding that the motion demonstrated a persistence of negative conditions for members of the LGBT community in Uganda, rather than a material change in those conditions. (Nantume v. Barr, 7/23/19)
CA9 Says Violation of a Restraining Order in Oregon Qualifies as a Conviction Rendering Petitioner Ineligible for Cancellation of Removal
The court concluded that the contempt of court judgment entered against the petitioner in Oregon for violating a restraining order qualified as a conviction rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. (Diaz-Quirazco v. Barr, 7/23/19)
CA8 Upholds Finding That Petitioner Who Supported the MFDC Group in Senegal Was Ineligible for Adjustment of Status
The court held that the Sengalese petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proving that MFDC was not a terrorist organization, or alternatively, that he should not reasonably have known that the MFDC was a terrorist organization when he supported it. (N’Diaye v. Barr, 7/23/19)
EOIR 30-Day Extension of Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form EOIR-26
EOIR 30-day extension of a request for comments previously announced at 84 FR 19960 on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge. Comments are now due 8/22/19. (84 FR 35422, 7/23/19)
DHS Notice Expanding the Categories of Persons Eligible for Expedited Removal
DHS notice expanding the categories of persons designated eligible for expedited removal. The notice, including the new designation, is effective on 7/23/19. Comments may be submitted on or before 9/23/19. (84 FR 35409, 7/23/19)
CA5 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Provided a Guatemalan Address for Notice Purposes (Withdrawn)
The court upheld BIA’s denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen her in absentia removal order, finding that it was not sufficient for the petitioner to provide a Guatemalan address to the immigration court pursuant to INA §239(a)(1)(F)(i). (Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 5/15/19, withdrawn 7/23/19)
AILA: DHS Attempts Massive Expansion of Unilateral Deportation Power
DHS announced a new policy designed to dramatically expand expedited removal to apply throughout the United States to anyone who has been in the United States for less than two years; the American Immigration Council is already planning litigation.
AILA Quicktake #271: DHS Announces the Expansion of Expedited Removal
AILA Associate Director of Government Relations Kate Voigt discusses DHS's announcement about a new policy, effective 7/23/19, to dramatically expand expedited removal, which will ramp up ICE's power everywhere in the United States, subjecting hundreds of thousands of people to rapid deportation.
CA3 Upholds Denial of Cancellation of Removal to Indian Businessman Who Had Resided in the United States Since 1998
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner, who had entered the U.S. in 1998 from India on a visitor’s visa, was ineligible for cancellation of removal, because he could not show that the requisite hardship would result from his removal. (Radiowala v. Att’y Gen., 7/22/19)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Guatemalan Petitioner Who Received Extortion Threats from Gangs
The court upheld the BIA and IJ’s finding that there was a lack of a nexus between the extortion threats and gang harassment that the petitioner had experienced in Guatemala and any protected ground for relief. (Hernandez-Garcia, et al. v. Barr, 7/22/19)
What Would Fix the Immigration Courts? Well, Independence is a Start!
AILA Secretary Kelli Stump highlights recent efforts by AILA and its partners to urge Congress to establish an Article I immigration court system to ensure that “when cases are as serious as they are, when lies and livelihoods are on the line“ justice is served and people get a fair day in cou
CA4 Says Conviction for Participation in a Criminal Street Gang in Virginia Is Not a CIMT
The court granted the petition for review, concluding that Virginia’s statute prohibiting participation in criminal gang activity does not categorically qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) for purposes of INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i). (Rodriguez Cabrera v. Barr, 7/19/19)
CA7 Upholds Asylum Denial to Mexican Petitioner Who Feared Persecution as the Mother of a Cartel Member’s Child
Where the Mexican petitioner claimed she feared persecution as the mother of a cartel member’s child, the court held there was nothing in the record that required BIA to conclude that she had experienced past persecution or reasonably feared future persecution. (N.Y.C.C. v. Barr, 7/19/19)
TRAC Report Shows ICE Fails to Target Serious Criminals in Immigration Court Filings
A TRAC report shows that, per data through June 2019, only 2.8 percent of DHS Immigration Court filings sought removal citing criminal activity. At 10 Immigration Courts, such cases were less than 0.5 percent of DHS filings.
CA1 Finds BIA Erred in Concluding Nepali Petitioner No Longer Had Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
The court granted in part the petition for review, finding that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s decision to deny the Nepali petitioner’s asylum application, because the government did not rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution. (Dahal v. Barr, 7/18/19)
CA9 Grants Mexican Petitioner’s Untimely Motion to Reopen Due to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The court held that the BIA erred in finding that the petitioner had failed to show prejudice from his prior attorney’s ineffective assistance with respect to deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and relief under former INA §212(c). (Flores v. Barr, 7/18/19)
CA9 Says Ambiguous Record of Conviction Does Not Bar Eligibility for Cancellation of Removal
The en banc court held that, in the context of eligibility for cancellation of removal, a petitioner’s state law conviction does not bar relief where the record is ambiguous as to whether the conviction constitutes a disqualifying predicate offense. (Marinelarena v. Barr, 7/18/19)
CA5 Finds Haitian Petitioner with Schizophrenia Was Not Denied Due Process at Removal Hearing
The court held that the IJ did not violate petitioner’s due process rights by failing to adhere to the procedural safeguards that were put in place after his competency hearing, finding that there was no variance that would amount to due process violations. (Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 7/18/19)
Lawsuit Seeks Clarity on How Immigrants Serving Time Are Deported From The United States
The American Immigration Council, AILA, and the Immigrant Defense Project filed a lawsuit to compel the government to release information about DOJ’s Institutional Hearing Program, an obscure program that expedites the deportation of immigrants who are serving time for criminal offenses.
The Institutional Hearing Program: An Overview
The American Immigration Council provides this fact sheet with an overview of the Institutional Hearing Program’s history and what is known about the way it works. It also highlights some of the due process concerns that surround the program.