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
CRS Issues Report Comparing Enforcement Provisions in H.R. 4437 and S.2611
Congressional Research Service report comparing enforcement provisions in H.R. 4437, S. 2611 and current law.
CA3 Finds Gay Argentine Suffered Past Persecution by Police
The court found that the treatment Petitioner suffered at the hands of the police, which occurred at least 20 times over several years, was persecution, even though he did not suffer severe injuries nor was he ever detained more than 12 hours. (Maldonado v. Atty. Gen. of U.S., 7/18/06)
CA3 Discusses “Particularly Serious Crime” Bar to Withholding of Removal
The court held that an offense must be an aggravated felony in order to be classified as a particularly serious crime and that the IJ erred in failing to consider only the loss attached to the fraud count for which Petitioner was convicted. (Alaka v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 7/18/06)
CA9 Remands Motion to Reopen for BIA Abuse of Discretion
The court held that the BIA’s failure to identify and evaluate the factors favorable to Petitioner’s motion to reopen, which presented new evidence of hardship for cancellation of removal, was an abuse of discretion. (Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 07/18/06)
CA2 Finds Record Shows Worsening Conditions in Belarus
The court held that the IJ and BIA erred in overlooking evidence that conditions in Belarus deteriorated between 1996 and 2000 and remanded the withholding claim. (Serafimovich v. Ashcroft, 7/17/06)
CA6 Invalidates Conviction For Failure to Prove Vacatur Solely for Immigration Purposes (Updated 11/14/06)
The court remanded the case to the BIA to vacate Petitioner’s order of removal, holding that the government had not met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner’s conviction remained valid for immigration purposes. (Pickering v. Gonzales, 10/4/06)
CA7 Refuses to Apply Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine to Person in Custody
The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine because Petitioner had surrendered to immigration authorities and remained in DHS custody. (Gutierrez-Almazan, 7/17/06)
BIA to Follow Revised Practice Regarding First Briefing Extensions
BIA notice advising on revised general practice regarding briefing deadlines for cases before the Board where the individual is detained, reducing the amount of time granted for first briefing extensions in detainee cases and the number of extension requests allowed. (71 FR 40151, 7/14/06)
ICE Memo on Confiscation and Return of Original Documents
This July 14, 2006 memorandum from John P. Torres, Acting Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, outlines the procedures for confiscation and return of original documents for persons in removal proceedings.
USCIS Letter on Running of INA § 212(a)(9)(B) Inadmissibility Period
A 1/26/09 letter from Lynden Melmed, USCIS Chief Counsel and a 7/14/06 letter from Robert Divine, USCIS Chief Counsel, confirm when the INA §212(a)(9)(B) inadmissibility period begins to run, and how the period is affected by parole or lawful admission under INA §212(d)(3).
CA2 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Denial of §212(i) Waiver
The court held that for purposes of a waiver under INA §212(i), a finding of a lack of extreme hardship is a discretionary determination, which is barred from judicial review under INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i). (Zhang v. Gonzales, 7/12/06)
BIA Affirms Asylum for Former Child Soldier
In an unpublished decision, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision to grant asylum, noting the respondent established a well-founded fear of persecution based on his Acholi tribal membership, as well as the possibility he could be identified as a former child soldier.
CA2 Remands for BIA to Develop Standards on “Frivolousness”
The court found that substantial evidence supported the negative credibility finding but remanded the IJ’s finding of frivolousness and asked the BIA to formulate standards for deciding when an asylum seeker’s application is frivolous. (Liu v. DOJ, 7/11/06)
USCIS Memo on Issuance of NTAs
A 7/11/06 memo from Michael Aytes, USCIS Associate Director, Domestic Operations, advising of an agreement with ICE regarding issuing an NTA and handling cases in which the beneficiary or applicant appears to be removable, including where benefit applications have been denied.
CA5 Holds No Jurisdiction to Review “Extreme Cruelty” Determination
CA5 held that INA §242(a)(2)(B) barred jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Petitioner had not suffered “extreme cruelty” by her USC spouse for purposes of “special rule” cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(2)(A)(i)(I). (Wilmore v. Gonzales, 7/5/06)
Sentencing Advisory Guidelines Letter
Sample letter to U.S. Attorney requesting information germane to sentencing under advisory guidelines—should Defendant be convicted as charged—to advise Defendant on consequences of pleading guilty or requesting trial. (Criminal Procedure; Discovery or Supplementing Certified Administrative Record)
CA2 Reverses IJ’s Fake Document Finding in Chinese Asylum Claim
The court held that the IJ engaged in speculation and made improper inferences in concluding that Petitioner’s 1989 and 1998 marriage certificates were fake. (Li v. INS, 6/29/06)
CA2 Remands Chinese Asylum Claim Due to IJ Bias and Hostility
The court found that apart from flaws in the adverse credibility finding, remand was required because of the IJ’s hostility, noting that the IJ’s questioning was inappropriate and indicated a bias toward Chinese witnesses. (Huang v. Gonzales, 6/29/06)
BIA Finds Derivative Citizenship Where Paternity Not Legitimated By Marriage
The BIA held that where the respondent was born out of wedlock in Guyana and his natural parents were never married, his paternity was not established through legitimation, so he is not ineligible to obtain derivative citizenship. Matter of Lawrence Rowe, 23 I&N Dec. 962 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Reconciles Case Law on BIA Remands
The court reconciled two precedent decisions on when remand to the BIA would be futile, finding remand not appropriate when the court is confident that the agency would reach the same result upon a reconsideration cleansed of errors. (Lin v. Gonzales, 6/28/06)
CA11 Holds BIA Abused its Discretion in Summarily Dismissing Appeal
The court held that where the notice of appeal sets forth its basis, the BIA erred in summarily dismissing it solely because Petitioners indicated that they would file a supporting brief, but failed to do so or offer an explanation for not doing so. (Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 6/28/06)
CA11 Holds a Timely Filed Motion to Reopen Tolls Voluntary Departure Period
The court held that a timely filed motion to reopen tolls the period of voluntary departure to afford the opportunity for a ruling on the merits of the motion, without jeopardizing eligibility for benefits sought by overstaying the voluntary departure period. (Ugokwe v. Att’y Gen., 6/28/06)
EOIR OPPM 06-01: Fee Waiver Form
EOIR issues Interim Operating Policies and Procedure Memorandum (OPPM) 06-01: Fee Waiver Form, which requires Immigration Judges use the attached standard fee waiver order whenever waiving a fee, including in detained cases, pursuant to 8 CFR § 1003.24(d).
CA3 Holds a Person Already Removed from the U.S. Is Not “In Custody” for Habeas Jurisdiction
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a habeas petition filed after the petitioner had been removed from the U.S. because he was not “in custody” of DHS. (Kumarasamy v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 6/23/06)
CA3 Finds Jurisdiction to Stay Voluntary Departure Period
The court found jurisdiction to grant a stay of the voluntary departure period because there is no indication that Congress intended to eliminate such jurisdiction. (Obale v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 6/22/06)