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
CA6 Grants Motion for Stay to Dominican Petitioner with Strong Showing of Irreparable Harm
Where the parties agreed that petitioner would likely be tortured if removed to the Dominican Republic, the court granted the motion for a stay, finding that his arguments presented a sufficient likelihood of success to weigh in favor of granting a stay. (Rondon Antonio v. Garland, 6/29/22)
CA9 Says That a Grant of TPS Does Not Constitute an Admission to the United States
The court held that petitioner’s receipt of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was not an admission, and thus that he did not have seven years of continuous residence in the United States required for purposes of lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal. (Hernandez v. Garland, 6/28/22)
Follow Litigation over Asylum Processing Interim Final Rule
Follow developments in the two separate cases challenging the Biden Administration’s interim final rule (IFR) on asylum processing in federal court. The IFR went into effect on May 31, 2022.
Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure ICE Immigration Bonds
ICE immigration bond interest rate for the period beginning July 1, 2022, and ending on September 30, 2022. (87 FR 40883, 7/8/22)
CA5 Finds Petitioner Forfeited Right to Notice by Failing to Provide Viable Mailing Address
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen and rescind his in absentia removal order based on lack of notice, finding that by moving without providing an address where he could be reached, he had forfeited his right to notice. (Gudiel-Villatoro v. Garland, 7/8/22)
CA9 Says USCIS Did Not Err in Applying IIRAIRA’s Permanent Inadmissibility Bar to Petitioner’s Pre-IIRAIRA Reentry
The court held that the permanent inadmissibility bar of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) applied retroactively to the petitioner such that he was ineligible for adjustment of status. (Rivera Vega v. Garland, 7/8/22)
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim of Armenian Petitioner Where IJ’s Findings of Inconsistencies Were Not Supported by Record
Granting the petition for review of the denial of the Armenian petitioner’s asylum application, the court held that three out of four inconsistencies the BIA relied upon in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination were not supported by the record. (Barseghyan v. Garland, 7/8/22)
CA7 Upholds BIA’s Reversal of CAT Relief as to Mexican Petitioner Threatened by Familia Michoacan Cartel
Where the BIA had vacated the IJ’s grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and had ordered the petitioner removed to Mexico, the court held that the BIA had correctly stated and properly applied the clear error standard of review. (Brito v. Garland, 7/7/22)
CRS In Focus Report: Access to Counsel in Removal Proceedings and Legal Access Programs
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides an In Focus report on removal proceedings and access to counsel, including legal access programs.
Immigration and the Power of Storytelling
In this blog post, AILA member John Wheaton writes on the power of storytelling in bringing people together and creating community, encouraging his fellow attorneys to consider asking clients to share their stories and increase understanding of the immigrant experience.
Detainees at ICA-Farmville Reach Settlement with Government Regarding COVID-19 Protections
The parties reached a settlement under which the ICA-Farmville Detention Center will be allowed to detain a maximum of 180 people and accept transfers only of individuals who are vaccinated, asymptomatic, and test negative for COVID-19. (Santos Garcia, et al. v. Mayorkas, et al., 7/6/22)
CA5 Denies DHS’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of Its Updated Guidance on the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law
The court denied DHS’s motion for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s vacatur of its “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law,” finding that DHS had failed to make a strong showing of likelihood of success on appeal. (Texas, et al. v. United States, et al., 7/6/22)
CA11 Holds That Petitioner’s Virginia Drug Trafficking Convictions Were Categorically CIMTs
The court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that the petitioner was removable because his Virginia drug trafficking convictions categorically constituted crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) within the meaning of INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i)–(ii). (Daye v. Att’y Gen., 7/6/22)
CA6 Reverses Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Partially Blocking DHS’s Civil Immigration Enforcement Guidance
The court held that even if plaintiffs could clear justiciability hurdles, they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law” violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). (Arizona, et al. v. Biden, et al., 7/5/22)
CA9 Upholds Denial of Third Motion to Reopen Based on Allegedly New and Material Country Conditions Evidence in Bangladesh
The court denied the parties’ motion for judicial administrative closure, and denied the petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s third motion to reopen based on new evidence of the growing influence of Jihadist extremists in Bangladesh. (Sarkar, et al. v. Garland, 7/1/22)
DHS OIG Finds Violations of ICE Detention Standards at Folkston ICE Processing Center and Folkston Annex
DHS OIG found that while ICE’s Folkston detention facilities complied with several detainee standards, it did not meet standards for facility conditions, medical care, grievances, segregation, staff-detainee communications, and handling of detainee property.
CA3 Says It Has Jurisdiction Where DHS’s Expedited Removal Procedures Did Not Allow Petitioner to Challenge Legal Basis for Removal
The court held that it had jurisdiction to consider in the first instance the petitioner’s challenge to the agency’s determination that his Pennsylvania conviction for receiving stolen property was an aggravated felony, and then found that it was. (Barradas-Jacome v. Att’y Gen., 6/30/22)
CA4 Finds Venue Was Proper Because the IJ Had Completed Proceedings in Virginia
The court held that a petition for review may be filed in the Fourth Circuit in any case that was decided by an IJ sitting at an immigration adjudication center in Richmond or Falls Church, Virginia, but denied the petition for review on the merits. (Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, 6/30/22)
U.S. Supreme Court Affirms the Biden Administration’s Authority to End MPP
AILA welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Biden v. Texas, which affirmed the Biden Administration’s authority to end the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).
BIA Finds an IJ May Rely on Impeachment Evidence
The BIA found that an IJ may rely on impeachment evidence as part of a credibility determination where the evidence is probative and its admission is not fundamentally unfair, and the witness is able to respond to that evidence. Matter of E-F-N-, 28 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2022)
CA5 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen to Chinese Christians in Indonesia Pursuant to INA §240(c)(7)(C)(ii)
Where the BIA had denied petitioners’ motion to reopen after finding they had not demonstrated changed country conditions in Indonesia, the court denied the petition for review, finding that petitioners’ claims were number-barred under INA §240(c)(7)(C)(ii). (Djie, et al. v. Garland, 6/29/22)
CA2 Says Dual National Need Only Show Persecution in Any Singular Country of Nationality to Be Considered a “Refugee”
The court granted the petition for review, holding that to qualify as a “refugee” under INA §101(a)(42)(A), a dual national asylum applicant need only show persecution in any singular country of nationality. (Zepeda-Lopez, et al. v. Garland, 6/28/22)
CA9 Says Cancellation of Removal Under NACARA §203 Is a Cancellation of Removal Under INA §240A
Denying the petition for review, the court held that a grant of special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) qualifies as a cancellation of removal under INA §240A. (Hernandez v. Garland, 6/27/22)
ICE 60-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form I-352
ICE 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form I-352, Immigration Bond. Comments are due 8/23/22. (87 FR 37882, 6/24/22)
USCIS Issues Policy Alert on Inadmissibility Under Section 212(a)(9)(b) of the INA
USCIS issued policy guidance whereby a noncitizen who again seeks admission more than 3 or 10 years after departure or removal is not inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(B), even if the noncitizen returned to the U.S., with or without authorization, during the statutory 3-year or 10-year period.