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
Practice Alert: Changes to Requests for Reconsiderations in Expedited Removal
This practice alert covers recent changes to Requests for Reconsiderations in expedited removal which has a significant impact on the law and procedures regarding the credible fear interview process, including a seven-day deadline and change in RFR eligibility for certain noncitizens.
CA2 Finds BIA and IJ Erred in Finding Chinese Petitioner Who Practiced Falun Gong Was Not Credible
The court concluded that the IJ misidentified part of the petitioner’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of the petitioner’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement. (Chen v. Garland, 7/25/23)
CA1 Says Salvadoran Petitioners Failed to Bear Their Burden as to Two Claimed PSGs
The court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners did not meet their burden as to the two separate particular social groups (PSGs) they claimed, namely “Salvadoran business owners perceived as wealthy” and the “Sanchez-Rivas nuclear family.” (Sanchez v. Garland, 7/14/23)
CA4 Finds Petitioner Showed Nexus Between Persecution by MS-13 Gang and Her Religion
Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that the BIA erred in not recognizing the nexus that the petitioner established between the persecution she suffered at the hands of the MS-13 gang and her Evangelical Christian faith. (Chicas-Machado v. Garland, 7/13/23)
CA8 Finds Mexican Petitioner Did Not Show Requisite Prejudice in Due Process Claim
The court held that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration based on his due process claim where he had not shown actual prejudice, and found that the BIA’s application of the wrong legal standard was immaterial. (Arroyo-Sosa v. Garland, 7/13/23)
CA8 Finds Petitioner’s Nebraska Convictions for Shoplifting Were Not Aggravated Felonies
The court held that the BIA erred in finding the petitioner removable for having committed a theft offense—and thus an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions, because the statute of conviction was broader than the generic federal offense. (Thok v. Garland, 7/13/23)
CA4 Finds Petitioners Entitled to Rescission Because Immigration Court Lacked Authority to Order Them Removed In Absentia
The court held that, pursuant to INA §240(b)(5)(A), the petitioners were entitled to rescission of their in absentia removal orders where their initial Notices to Appear (NTAs) failed to contain the date and time of their hearing. (Lazo-Gavidia v. Garland, 7/12/23)
Southern California Chapter ICE ERO Contact List (7/11/23)
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Los Angeles Field Office contact list as of 7/11/23.
Policy Brief: Guiding Principles for an Electronic Service of the Notice to Appear
Recent developments in technology and increased migration encounters have generated interest in creating electronic systems for processing and serving NTAs. AILA provides a policy brief that outlines the parameters electronic systems and electronic service must have in order to preserve due process.
CA4 Says Petitioner’s PSG of “Young Male Family Members of His Cousin Emily” Was Legally Cognizable
The court held that BIA erred in concluding that petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” was not legally cognizable, and remanded for BIA to further consider his withholding of removal claim. (Santos Garcia v. Garland, 7/11/23)
CA4 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Petitioner After Finding IJ Adequately Developed the Record
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ had adequately developed the record and had properly determined that the basis for the petitioner’s claims for relief was a generalized fear of criminal gang members and violent conditions in El Salvador. (Tepas v. Garland, 7/10/23)
CA5 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Order Denying Withholding of Removal to Salvadoran Petitioner
The court held that the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal was not a final order of removal, and found that the petition for review was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the petitioner’s reinstatement order had become final. (Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland, 7/10/23)
CA4 Vacates Denial of Asylum After Finding Aspects of BIA’s Decision Required Clarification
The court remanded for the BIA to clarify its determination that the Chinese petitioner could not show changed circumstances that would reset the clock for seeking asylum under INA §208(a)(2)(D) and to apply Zambrano v. Sessions in the first instance. (Chen v. Garland, 7/6/23)
CA4 Grants Asylum to Pakistani Petitioner Who Aided United States During Afghanistan War
The court remanded for the BIA to grant asylum to petitioner, a Pakistani businessman who had aided the United States during the war in Afghanistan, finding that any reasonable adjudicator would find that petitioner faced a well-founded threat of future persecution. (Ullah v. Garland, 7/6/23)
CA8 Finds Mexican Petitioner Failed to Show Membership in Any of His 12 Proposed PSGs
Upholding the denial of asylum and related relief as to the Mexican petitioner, the court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that none of the petitioner’s 12 proposed particular social groups (PSGs) was cognizable for asylum purposes. (Uriostegui-Teran v. Garland, 7/6/23)
CA9 Declines to Rehear Mendoza-Linares v. Garland En Banc
The court denied the petition for rehearing en banc in the case, which held that Congress has precluded the court from asserting jurisdiction over the merits of individual expedited removal orders, even with regard to constitutional challenges. (Mendoza-Linares v. Garland, 7/5/23)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Honduran Petitioner Whose Family Was Involved in a Feud with Another Family
The court upheld the denial of asylum to the petitioner—who had fled his home in Honduras due to a murderous feud between his family and another family—finding that he had failed to show that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him. (Osorio-Morales v. Garland, 7/5/23)
CA11 Finds IJ and BIA Misinterpreted “Extreme Cruelty” in INA §240A(b)(2) as Requiring Proof of Physical Violence
Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court agreed with the petitioner that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted INA §240A(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. (Ruiz v. Att’y Gen., 5/18/23, amended 7/5/23)
The Immigration and Nationality Act’s Lost Appellate Rights Warnings
AILA Law Journal author Christopher Boom shares some insights into his recent article, noting that “Taking away appellate rights from noncitizens for not going to their hearings without warning them of this possibility first“ is unjust and contrary to the will of Congress.
CA3 Remands for Rescission of In Absentia Removal Order Where NTA Lacked Date and Time of Removal Hearing
Where the petitioner’s initial Notice to Appear (NTA) omitted the date and time of her removal hearing, the court remanded for the BIA to rescind her in absentia removal order, because no change or postponement occurred and DHS never issued a new NTA. (Madrid-Mancia v. Att’y Gen., 7/3/23)
Southern California Chapter OPLA Los Angeles Contact List (July 2023)
Southern California Chapter OPLA Los Angeles contact list as of July 2023.
Southern California Chapter Unit Prosecution Chart (July 2023)
Southern California Chapter Unit Prosecution Chart as of July 2023.
CA2 Remands for BIA to Determine Whether Petitioners Received Notice Required to Trigger Frivolous Asylum Claim Bar
The court remanded for the BIA to determine whether the IJ made factual findings sufficient to support the notice required to trigger the permanent reentry bar that applies to noncitizens who file frivolous asylum claims after receiving notice of that consequence. (Ud Din v. Garland, 6/30/23)
EOIR to Relocate Chicago Immigration Court’s Main Location
EOIR issued a notice that the Chicago Immigration Court’s main location at 525 W. Van Buren Street will close for relocation on July 13, 2023. During the closure, scheduled detained and non-detained hearings will take place at the Chicago Immigration Court’s satellite location.
Practice Alert: Supreme Court Decision on Biden Administration’s Immigration Enforcement Guidance Not Yet in Effect
AILA provides a practice alert on the effective date of the Supreme Court’s decision in USA v. Texas, a case concerning the Biden Administration’s immigration enforcement guidance.