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
CA3 Remands for Determination of Whether Vacated Conviction Stands for Immigration Purposes
The court held that the BIA erred in ignoring Petitioner's sole argument that he was no longer removable by virtue of his vacated conviction and remanded the case to the Board to determine whether the conviction still stands for immigration purposes. (Cruz v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA2 Remands Where BIA Granted Relief to Spouse on Same Facts
The court remanded to ensure that the denial of the wife's claim was not arbitrary in light of its grant of relief to the husband, where husband and wife feared persecution based on the birth of two children in the U.S. (Zhang v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA6 Refuses to Impute Parents’ Fraudulent Conduct to Their Minor Child
The court held that, for purposes of establishing inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(6)(c)(i), the BIA’s decision to impute the parents’ fraudulent conduct to their minor child is impermissible and an unreasonable interpretation of the INA. (Singh v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA10 Discusses Grounds for Contesting Removal under the Visa Waiver Program
CA10 held that the district director did not err in removing Petitioner, who entered the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program, without first considering his self-petition for classification as a battered spouse and adjustment of status. (Schmitt v. Maurer, 6/20/06)
CA10 Amends Opinion Holding INA §245(i) Trumps §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)
The court amended its opinion but continued to hold that Congress intended to permit §245(i) adjustment of status for persons subject to the permanent bar under 212(a)(9)(C)(1)(i). (Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 6/19/06)
CA4 Vacates Removal Order Amid Discussion of “Date of Admission” Under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i)
The court held that the BIA erred in concluding that the “date of admission” under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i) may include the date of adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, when a person has previously been inspected and admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor. (Aremu v. Gonzales, 6/19/06).
CA2 Resolves Timing Issue for MTRs Based on Changed Conditions
The court held that for purposes of a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, the date the record was closed by the IJ is the date prior to which any evidence must be unavailable. (Norani v. Gonzales, 6/16/06)
CA1 Refuses to Reinstate Expired Period of Voluntary Departure
The court held that because INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction to review a discretionary determination on voluntary departure, it did not have authority to create a new voluntary departure period or reinstate an expired one. (Onikoyi v. Gonzales, 6/16/06)
CA7 Holds IJ’s Refusal to Continue Hearing Resulted in Denial of Due Process
CA7 held that the hearing on the merits was fundamentally unfair in light of the improper withdrawal of Petitioner’s attorney, the attorney’s retention of Petitioner’s documents, and the IJ’s refusal to continue Petitioner’s hearing. (Gjeci v. Gonzales, 6/15/06)
EOIR Meets with Second Circuit Regarding Surge in Federal Appeals
BIA judges and IJs met with Second Circuit judges to discuss issues related to the surge of immigration cases reaching the circuit courts, including: the nature of immigration cases, BIA and IJ working procedures, changes to the administrative system, and reasons for increases in federal appeals.
BIA Finds Social Visibility Important in Determining Whether a Particular Social Group Exist
The BIA held that social visibility of a claimed social group is important in identifying if a “particular social group” exists and that a group of former drug informants working against the Cali cartel did not have the requisite social visibility. Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951 (BIA 2006)
MOA Between USCIS and ICE on the Issuance of NTAs
Memorandum of Agreement between USCIS and ICE, setting forth when each party may issue an NTA following a USCIS adjudication. The MOA applies to cases adjudicated on or after 10/1/06 and was released to AILA on 8/26/10 in response to a FOIA request initiated in March 2009.
CA10 Refuses to Apply CA9 Law on Immigration Consequences of CA9 Conviction
Although Petitioner was convicted within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, the court refused to apply 9th Circuit law to determine whether his conviction stood for immigration purposes because his immigration proceedings took place in the 10th Circuit. (Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 6/14/06)
AILF/AILA Comment Opposes Regulations on Eligibility of "Arriving Aliens" to Adjust Status in Removal Proceedings
AILF and AILA submitted comments opposing interim rules promulgated by CIS and EOIR suggesting unnecessary and harmful limits on the exercise of discretion in adjustment cases filed by "arriving aliens" in removal cases.
CA4 Discusses Delivery Presumptions for Notices to Appear
The court held that for purposes of rescinding an in absentia removal order, where a notice to appear is sent by regular mail, the BIA abused its discretion by requiring Petitioner to rebut the “strong presumption” of delivery for certified mail. (Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 6/13/06)
CA5 Holds AG’s Heightened Standard of Review for §209(c) Waivers Is Not Ultra Vires
The court held that the AG’s imposition of a heightened standard of review to §209(c) waivers of inadmissibility that are sought by “violent criminals” was within the scope of his discretion as conferred by the INA and therefore, not ultra vires. (Jean v. Gonzales, 6/9/06)
CA1 Reverses IJ Denial of Motion to Rescind In Absentia Order
The court held that the denial of Petitioner’s motion to rescind and reopen proceedings was based on an error of law where the IJ failed to consider the “totality of the circumstances” when evaluating “exceptional circumstances.” (Kaweesa v. Gonzales, 6/9/06)
Snapshot of the Hagel/Martinez Compromise (S. 2611)
AILA’s summary of the 795-page “Hagel/Martinez compromise" (S. 2611) passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006.
BIA Denies Relief to Burmese Chin Based on Finding of Material Support
The BIA rejected a “totality of the circumstances” test for whether an organization is engaged in terrorist activity and refused to consider an alien’s intent in making a donation or the recipient’s intended use when deciding “material support”. Matter of S-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 936 (BIA 2006)
AG Remands Material Support Bar Case to BIA
The AG remands case in light of the 2/20/07 determination of the DHS Secretary that INA Sec. 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) shall not apply with respect to material support provided to the Chin National Front/Chin National Army. Matter of S-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 289 (AG 2007)
CA1 Finds No Well-Founded Fear in Cambodian Asylum Claim
The court held that Petitioners’ political involvement was low-level to nonexistent, and that they failed to establish that political beliefs would be imputed to them or that they were similarly situated to those who suffered abuses. (Sou v. Gonzales, 6/7/06)
BIA on Effective Date of CSPA
In an unpublished decision, the BIA remanded, finding that the respondent's adjustment application was pending before the Immigration Court after 8/6/02, the date of enactment of CSPA, and she qualifies as a "child" under CSPA formula. Courtesy of Juan Lorenzo Rodriguez Quesada.
CA8 Holds No Jurisdiction to Review IJ’s Findings on Country Conditions
The court held that Petitioner’s challenge of the IJ’s factual determination regarding country conditions in Afghanistan is not a reviewable “question of law” under INA §242(a)(2)(D). (Hanan v. Gonzales, 6/6/06)
CA7 Remands for Reconsideration of Evidence of Removability
CA7 remanded for the BIA to reconsider its decision finding Petitioner removable. The IJ erred in concluding that the Attorney General Guidelines for INS undercover operations, which were established prior to INS’s reorganization, did not apply to DHS. (Pieniazek v. Gonzales, 6/5/06)
CA2 Remands for Consideration of Imputed Political Opinion
The court held that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that because Petitioner was not directly harmed by the Ethiopian government he did not have a well-founded fear, and that the IJ and BIA failed to take into account imputed political opinion. (Maidal v. INS, 6/5/06)