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
CA7 Overturns Holding that Bangladeshis Had Not Suffered Past Persecution
The court found that the IJ erred in concluding that the harm Petitioner and his family suffered at the hands of Muslim fundamentalists did not amount to past persecution. The court could not tell what definition of persecution the IJ used. (Gomes v. Gonzales, 1/11/07)
CA7 Finds IJ Ignored Significant Piece of Evidence re: Well-Founded Fear
The court found that the IJ ignored the most significant piece of evidence in finding that Petitioner lacked a well-founded fear, namely that the persecuting authorities believed that Petitioner was his identical twin brother.(Mema v. Gonzales, 1/11/07)
CA7 Rejects Retroactivity Argument Regarding §212(c)’s “Statutory Counterpart” Rule
The court found that 8 CFR §1212.3(f)(5), which allows deportees to invoke §212(c) if their deportable crime has a statutory counterpart to a ground of inadmissibility in §212(a), and Matter of Blake, were not impermissibly retroactive. (Valere v. Gonzales, 1/11/07)
ICE Detention Standards Violation Complaint Process
Information regarding the process for submitting complaints to ICE and DHS on conditions in alien detention facilities, prepared by the national CBOs' DHS Enforcement and Civil Rights/Liberties Committees, the ABA and the National Immigration Justice Center.
CA9 Finds “Other Resistance” in CPC Cases Does Not Require Motivation Proof
The court found that to fit within “other resistance to a coercive population control" (CPC), an applicant must show that the government was enforcing a CPC program and the applicant resisted the program. (Lin v. Gonzales, 1/9/07)
CA3 Joins Other Circuits in Rejecting BIA’s Matter of S-V- CAT Decision
The court rejected the BIA’s conclusion that acquiescence of a public official requires actual knowledge of the tortuous activity and that it is sufficient to show that the government is “willfully blind” to the activity. (Silva-Rengifo v. Gonzales, 1/9/07)
CA9 Allows Motion to Reopen Filed After Removal and Illegal Reentry
The court held that 8 CFR §1003.23(b)(1), which precludes a person who is “the subject of” proceedings from filing a motion to reopen after departing the U.S., did not bar Petitioner’s motion after he was removed and reentered illegally. (Lin v. Gonzales, 1/5/07)
U.S. District Court Holds No Standing to Sue for Use of NCIC Data to Arrest Immigration Violators
A New York District Court held that Plaintiffs had no standing to sue over local and state law enforcement’s use of NCIC data to arrest individuals for immigration violations. (Nat'l Council of La Raza v. Gonzalez, 1/5/07)
CA5 Reverses IJ’s Determination That Petitioner’s Asylum Application Was Untimely
CA5 rejected the IJ’s finding that the §208.4(a)(2)(ii) provision that an asylum application received after the 1-year deadline is deemed timely filed if the application was mailed within 1 year, only applies to applications never received by the agency. (Nakimbugwe v. Gonzales, 1/5/07)
CA7 Upholds Admission of Embassy and Forensic Reports in Asylum Claim
The court noted that the sole test for admissibility of evidence is whether it is probative and its admission fundamentally fair. (Doumbia v. Gonzales, 1/4/07)
CA2 Refuses to Accord Chevron Deference to BIA Single-Member Nonprecedential Decision
The court remanded to the BIA for a precedential opinion on the definition of “lawfully resided continuously” for purposes of a waiver of inadmissibility under INA §212(h). (Rotimi v. Gonzales, 1/3/07)
CA9 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Withholding and CAT Claim despite CIMT
The court rejected the government’s argument that the AG has absolute discretion in determining whether any crime is a “particularly serious crime,” finding that Petitioner had presented a question of law with regard to his withholding and CAT claims. (Morales v. Gonzales, 1/3/07)
ICE’s Family Residential Standards (2007)
A 2007 version of ICE’s Family Residential Standards.
Immigration Law Today-Jan/Feb 2007
The Jan/Feb 2007 issue of Immigration Law Today focuses on global migration covering laws in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, plus PERM and pro bono from the clients’ perspectives.
CA1 Orders BIA to Consider Sibling’s Grant of Asylum on Remand
In an Indonesian asylum claim, the court remanded, finding that the BIA failed to address whether the grant of asylum to Petitioner’s brother was material, where the brothers had similar claims. (Ticoalu v. Gonzales, 12/28/06)
CA9 Amends its Hosseini Decision with Footnote on Confidentiality
At govt request, the court amended its 9/28/06 decision to include a footnote which states: “The government points out that it is precluded by regulation from disclosing any information relating to [Petitioner’s] asylum application ‘without written consent.’” (Hosseini v. Gonzales, 12/28/06)
ACLU Brochure on Your Rights If Questioned By the Government
Brochure by the ACLU explaining the rights of an individual if he is questioned by law enforcement, including the FBI, ICE, or police.
DHS Publishes Privacy Impact Assessment of ICE Electronic Travel Document System
DHS published a Privacy Impact Assessment of ICE’s Electronic Travel Document System (eTD) on 10/13/06. The system maintains information regarding aliens who have been removed, or ordered removed, from the U.S.
CA8 Upholds Adverse Credibility Determination in Forced Sterilization Claim
The court held that in viewing the record as a whole, the IJ’s credibility assessment was supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. (Zhuang v. Gonzales, 12/22/06)
CA11 Finds Being Held against One’s Will for Extended Period Is Persecution
The court found that the BIA erred when it found that the cumulative effect of the beatings, threatening phone calls and kidnapping did not amount to persecution, and noted that being held against one’s will for 18 days was “clearly persecution.” (Ruiz v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 12/21/06)
CA9 Transfers Case to BIA to Consider Contested Issues and Conduct Factfinding
Under INA §242(b)(4)(A), the court cannot rely on the district court’s record in reviewing habeas cases converted to petitions for review. As there was also no administrative record, the court transferred the case to the BIA to resolve contested issues. (Rafaelano v. Wilson, 12/20/06)
CA1 Finds DHS Rebutted Presumption of Well-Founded Fear in Cambodian Claim
The court held that where a DOS report demonstrates fundamental changes in specific circumstances that form the basis of the presumptive well-founded fear, the report is, in and of itself, sufficient to rebut the presumption. (Chreng v. Gonzales, 12/19/06)
CA7 Says NTA That Does Not Specify Date and Time of Hearing is Not Defective
CA7 held that the notice to appear, which did not specify the date and time of his hearing, taken together with the immigration court-issued hearing notice, satisfied the requirements of INA §239(a)(1) and did not deprive the IJ of jurisdiction over his case. (Dababneh v. Gonzales, 12/19/06)
CA4 Finds “Hiding” Is Not a Reasonable Internal Relocation Option
CA4 found BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner could reasonably relocate internally was not supported by substantial evidence, concluding it unreasonable to find that Petitioner was undisturbed while in hiding in her home country for a four-year period. (Bockou Essohou v. Gonzales, 12/15/06)
CA6 Finds No Abuse of BIA Discretion in Denying Special Motion to Reopen
CA6 held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s special motion to reopen under 8 CFR §1003.44. The court agreed that there were no proceedings to reopen after Petitioner “accidentally” executed an outstanding deportation order. (Mansour v. Gonzales, 12/14/06)