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
The “Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability” Explained
In a video blog post, AILA Law Journal authors Sabrina Damast and Eric Lee explain what the “Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability“ is, why it is important to immigration lawyers, and the current state of the doctrine in federal court litigation.
CA5 Finds Persecutor Bar Applies to Eritrean Petitioner Who Impeded Escape of Persecuted Prisoners
The court upheld the BIA’s application of the persecutor bar as to the petitioner, finding that the record supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner had assisted in persecution in Eritrea by impeding the escape of persecuted prisoners. (Gebrgzabher v. Garland, 12/19/22)
CA9 Says BIA Erred by Failing to Conduct Cumulative-Effect Review When Assessing Past Persecution
The court held that the BIA erred by failing to conduct cumulative-effect review when assessing the petitioner’s evidence of past persecution, finding that the agency improperly analyzed each of the petitioner’s categories of past harm in isolation. (Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 12/16/22)
CA8 Holds That IJ Properly Relied on Common-Sense Inferences in Finding That DHS Proved Petitioner’s Alienage
The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s conclusion—affirmed and adopted by the BIA—that DHS had satisfied its burden to prove the Honduran petitioner’s alienage by clear and convincing evidence. (Escobar v. Garland, 12/15/22)
CA5 Holds That Petitioner Had No Legal Basis to Complain That Her Notice to Appear Was in English
The court found that there was no legal authority to support the petitioner’s assertion that the United States was required to provide notice of the petitioner’s hearing in any language other than English. (Platero-Rosales v. Garland, 12/15/22)
Key Takeaways from AILA Meetings with DOJ Leadership
Summaries of meetings between AILA staff and coalition partners and DOJ leadership to raise AILA’s top immigration reform priorities. These meetings grew from the March 2021 letter AILA and partners sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland. The latest meeting occurred in July 2022.
Practice Alert: EOIR to Create Dedicated “EOIR 33” Docket
EOIR is creating a dedicated docket for individuals without a fixed address known as the “EOIR 33 Docket.” This will also be paired with a shift in practice on the part of both CBP and ICE in how NTAs issued at the border and changes of address are handled.
Practice Pointer: Asylum Processing Rule
A new asylum processing rule changes the way that DHS processes asylum cases for certain individuals in expedited removal proceedings. This rule creates a significantly condensed processing time and shifts some of the processing that used to happen at the southern border to interior cities.
Revised 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form EOIR-31
EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-31. This notice was previously published with an incorrect email address for comments. This notice corrects the email address and extends the period for comment to 1/9/23. (87 FR 75665, 12/9/22)
BIA Holds That Evidence Obtained from Routine Traffic Stop Is Not Entitled to Hearing on Suppression Motion
The BIA held that where an IJ finds that a traffic stop was a routine law enforcement action, a respondent has not established a prima face case of a Fourth Amendment violation and is not entitled to a hearing on a suppression motion. Matter of Mariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666 (BIA 2022)
The Death to Asylum Regulations Continue to Harm Asylum Seekers Even Though They Are Enjoined
AILA member Victoria Neilson writes about the “Death to Asylum“ regulations and their continued impact on practitioners and asylum seekers ahead of the two-year anniversary of these Trump-era regulations being published on 12/11/20.
EOIR Releases Internet-Based Hearings Access Information
EOIR released a list of internet-based hearings access information, alphabetized by state and then immigration court within each state. EOIR included Immigration Judge default hearing mediums, access codes, and hearing links.
CA9 Says a Conviction Under California Penal Code §273a(a) Qualifies as a Crime of Child Abuse Under the INA
The en banc court held that the petitioner’s conviction under California Penal Code §273a(a) for willfully allowing a child under his care to be placed in a situation where their person or health was endangered was an offense under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i). (Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland, 12/8/22)
CA11 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Asylum to Bangladeshi Petitioner Based on IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination
The court found that the IJ and the BIA had offered specific, cogent reasons for determining that the Bangladeshi petitioner’s testimony was not credible, and concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the IJ’s demeanor determination. (Hasan-Nayem v. Att’y Gen., 12/7/22)
ICE Flyer with Remote Check-in Instructions for the NYC ICE/ERO Office
ICE provides a flyer in English and Spanish with instructions and QR codes to complete required check-ins remotely for Southern border parole arrivals at the NYC ICE/ERO office.
We Must Protect Children in Immigration Proceedings
AILA Law Journal authors Lory D. Rosenberg, Susan G. Roy, Paul Schmidt, and Rekha Sharma-Crawford share some insights about their article, “Time for a Child Welfare Approach to Cancellation of Removal“ in which they focused on how the best interests of the child are routinely ignored.
AILA and the American Immigration Council Respond to a Bipartisan Framework of Immigration Reform Compromises
AILA and the Council respond to the news that Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) have reached an agreement on a draft Border and DREAM Act Deal.
CA9 Finds There Is No Exception to INA §241(a)(5) for Removal Orders That Result in a Gross Miscarriage of Justice
The court held that INA §241(a)(5), which bars reopening reinstated removal orders, has no exception for removal orders that result in a gross miscarriage of justice, and that the BIA may not reopen such reinstated removal orders sua sponte. (Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 7/18/22, amended 12/2/22)
CA9 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Untimely Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Alleged Underlying Conviction Was Invalid
The court held that BIA did not err in denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen, which was not subject to equitable tolling, and which challenged his removal order on the ground that his underlying conviction was allegedly invalid. (Perez-Camacho v. Garland, 8/1/22, amended 12/2/22)
CA3 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Motion to Reconsider After Finding Petitioner’s Waiver of Administrative Appeal Was Valid
Denying the consolidated petitions for review, the court found that the record did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner had unknowingly, involuntarily, and unintelligently waived his right to an administrative appeal under INA §242(b)(4)(B). (Alexander-Mendoza v. Att’y Gen., 12/2/22)
CA5 Distinguishes Rodriguez v. Garland Where Petitioner’s NTA Was Defective But He Received Subsequent NOH
The court denied the petition for rehearing and found that Rodriguez v. Garland was distinguishable, because although the petitioner’s Notice to Appear (NTA) was defective, he did not dispute receiving the subsequent Notice of Hearing (NOH). (Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 12/1/22)
CA5 Finds BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen of Nigerian Brothers Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of the petitioners’ motions to reopen based on ineffective counsel and in refusing to reopen their removal proceedings sua sponte. (Eneugwu v. Garland, 12/1/22)
ICYMI: ICE Issues Statement on Improper Disclosure of Noncitizen Personally Identifiable Information
ICE posted notice that a document was erroneously posted to ICE.gov for approximately five hours that included personally identifiable information of approximately 6,000 noncitizens in ICE custody. ICE is notifying noncitizens or their attorneys impacted by the disclosure.
BIA Enters Order of Disbarment Where Respondent Represented 10 People Before DHS and BIA Despite His Suspension from Practice
The BIA adopted the sanction proposed by the Disciplinary Counsels for EOIR and DHS by entering an order of disbarment, but held that it may deviate from a proposed sanction if the particular facts and circumstances warrant a different result. Matter of K. Gupta, 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022)
AILA and the American Immigration Council Respond to Supreme Court Oral Arguments in U.S. v. Texas
AILA and the Council respond to oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court in the case U.S. v. Texas, a dispute over the Biden Administration’s authority to set immigration policy.