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
CA2 Holds IJ Erred in Denying Motion to Rescind In Absentia Order
The court held that the IJ erred by failing to adequately explain why Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of receipt and by conflating his claims for rescission on grounds of nonreceipt and exceptional circumstances. (Alrefae v. Chertoff, 12/14/06)
CA5 Says Stop-Time Rule of INA §240A(d) May Be Applied Retroactively
The court held that Congress’s intent that the stop-time rule be applied retroactively to transitional cases was clearly conveyed in IIRAIRA §309(c)(5). (Heaven v. Gonzales, 12/14/06)
CA5 Holds BIA Abused its Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen Based on IAC
CA5 held that the denial of the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel was an abuse of discretion, rejecting BIA’s conclusion that counsel’s admission that Petitioner falsely claimed U.S. citizenship was strategic and therefore, not ineffective.(Mai v. Gonzales, 12/13/06)
CA9 Finds a Refugee Is Subject to Removal Even if Status Is Not Terminated
CA9 concluded that, based on a plain reading the statute and deferring to the BIA’s interpretation in In re Smirko, a person who arrives in the U.S. as a refugee may be removed even if refugee status has never been terminated under INA §207(c)(4). (Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 12/12/06)
ICE Memorandum on Discretion in Custody Determinations for Cases of Extreme or Severe Medical Concern
ICE released a memorandum dated 12/11/06 on prosecutorial discretion when making custody determinations for aliens (adults and/or juveniles) who have severe medical conditions transferring from hospitals and social services or law enforcement agencies.
CA11 Says IJ Abused Discretion in Refusing to Grant Continuance for 245(i) Beneficiary
The court held that the IJ abused his discretion in refusing to continue a case where Petitioner had an approved labor certification, a pending visa petition and an immediately available visa number. (Haswanee v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 12/8/06)
CA2 Expands its Interpretation of “Questions of Law” under INA §242(a)(2)(D)
The court granted rehearing and held that while the term “questions of law” is not limited to issues of statutory construction, it may not review challenges to factual determinations or the exercise of discretion. (Chen v. DOJ, 12/7/06)
CA2 Remands for Individualized Showing of Reliance on Availability of §212(c) Relief
The court remanded to the BIA to determine whether Petitioner relied on the continuing availability of §212(c) relief when he delayed filing an affirmative §212(c) application following his conviction by jury trial prior to IIRAIRA. (Wilson v. Gonzales, 12/7/06)
CA1 Remands §212(h) Waiver Denial
The court vacated the denial of Petitioner’s motion to reconsider and remanded the case for clarification of the BIA’s rationale for accepting the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s §212(h) waiver. (Onwuamaegbu v. Gonzales, 12/6/06)
CA9 Rejects Retroactivity Challenge to “Stop-Time” Rule Under INA §240A(d)(1)(B)
CA9 held that INA §240A(d)(1)(B), which stops accrual of continuous residence upon commission of certain crimes for purposes of cancellation, is not impermissibly retroactive where the petitioner was not eligible for relief at the time of his plea. (Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 12/6/06)
BIA Denies Motion to Reconsider Based on Prior Arguments and Authority
The BIA held that a motion to reconsider must be supported by material error; where there is new law, an explanation of its material effect; and, for affirmation without opinion, a showing that errors were raised on appeal. Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006)
Supreme Court Issues Favorable Ruling in Drug Possession Case
On 12/5/06, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that drug possession convictions that qualify as state felonies, but would not qualify as felonies under federal law, are not “aggravated felonies” as defined under INA § 101(a)(43)(B). (Lopez v. Gonzales, 12/5/06)
CA2 Finds Mauritanian Asylum Applicant Not Firmly Resettled in Mali
The court held that the IJ erroneously placed the burden of proof regarding the question of resettlement on the Petitioner and that the IJ’s firm resettlement conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence. (Makadji v. Gonzales, 12/5/06)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Ukrainian Prosecutor and His Family
The court held that being a prosecutor is not an unchangeable or fundamental attribute. The court stated that it was Petitioner’s conduct as a prosecutor, and not his status as a member of such a purported social group that caused the alleged persecution. (Pavlyk v. Gonzales, 12/4/06)
CA11 Finds Habeas Proceedings Appropriate Means for Challenging the Existence of a Removal Order
CA11 held that INA §242(a)(5),making a petition for review the “sole and exclusive” means of review of an order of removal, does not apply where the existence of a removal order is challenged. The court remanded to the district court for habeas proceedings. (Madu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 12/1/06)
DHS Report on Treatment of ICE Detainees
A December 2006 DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit report addresses compliance with U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement Detention Standards at five detention facilities.
CA7 Remands for “Federal Felony Approach,” but Rejects §209(c) Waiver
CA7 found that because it had adopted the “hypothetical federal felony approach,” Petitioner’s heroin possession conviction would not bar asylum. It also upheld the determination that Petitioner was no longer a refugee eligible to adjust status under INA §209(c).(Gutnik v. Gonzales, 11/29/06)
CA2 Holds Pre-Conviction Time Served Counts Toward §212(c)’s Five-Year Bar
The court held that Petitioner was ineligible for relief under former INA §212(c) because he served more than five years for an aggravated felony, including pre-conviction detention. (Spina v. DHS, 11/28/06)
CA9 Holds No Abuse of Discretion in BIA’s Refusal to Reissue Decision
The court held that where the BIA complied with its own regulations when serving its notice of decision, it did not later abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen proceedings and reissue the decision despite Petitioner’s allegation of nonreceipt. (Singh v. Gonzales, 11/28/06)
CA8 Upholds Constitutionality of REAL ID’s Elimination of Habeas Review
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(D), which permits judicial review of all constitutional claims and questions of law in removal proceedings, is an adequate and effective substitute for habeas review to test the legality of a person’s detention. (Mohamed v. Gonzales, 11/27/06)
CA3 Finds No Constitutional Right to Asylum and Upholds IJ’s Asylum Denial
The court held that there is no constitutional right to asylum and noted that given the discretionary nature of asylum, Petitioner’s argument that the delay violated due process must fail at the threshold. (Mudric v. Gonzales, 11/24/06)
CA9 Holds Stop-Time Rule of INA §240A(d)(1)(B) May Not Be Applied Retroactively
The court held that part B of the permanent stop-time rule of INA §240A(d)(1) may not be applied retroactively to stop the accrual of continuous residence for an individual who pleaded guilty before the enactment of IIRAIRA. (Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 11/22/06)
CA1 Holds §212(c) Cannot Waive Deportability for a “Crime of Violence”
The court upheld the BIA’s approach in Matter of Brieva, and held that Petitioner, who was deportable for having committed a crime of violence, was ineligible for §212(c) relief because there is no counterpart ground of exclusion. (Kim v. Gonzales, 11/16/06)
CA1 Holds Adjustment Granted by INS Outside Proceedings Invalid
The court found no due process violation in refusing Petitioner a hearing on whether his status was lawfully adjusted by INS, because he was in proceedings at the time the application was granted and should have filed with the IJ. (Dar-Salameh v. Gonzales, 11/15/06)
CA9 Holds AZ Domestic Assault Statute Does Not Categorically Involve Moral Turpitude
The court held that Arizona’s misdemeanor domestic assault statute requires neither the willful intent nor the type of injury that is necessary for domestic assault to qualify as a categorical crime involving moral turpitude. (Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 11/15/06)