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
CA9 Reverses IJ & Criticizes Her Predisposition to Discredit Testimony of Asylum-Seekers
The Court held that substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s negative credibility determination. It noted that it had reversed this IJ’s credibility determination in several previous cases and instructed the BIA to remand the case to a different IJ. (Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 9/7/05)
CA2 Says Prima Facie Showing Not Requred for Certain CAT MTRs
The court found that the CAT regulations on motions to reopen do not require applicants to establish a prima facie CAT case if their case was pending on or after March 22, 1999. (Guo v. Gonzales, 9/7/05)
CA1 Treats Habeas Appeal Pending on 5/11/05 as a Petition for Review
The court found that a habeas appeal pending in circuit court on 5/11/05 should be treated as a petition for review, reasoning that such a case is still “pending” in district court within the meaning of the REAL ID Act. (Ishak v. Gonzales, 9/6/05)
CA11 Upholds Adverse Credibility Finding in Haitian Asylum Case
The Court upheld the IJ’s decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal and CAT protection. The Court held that Petitioner’s testimony was “too general” and failed to demonstrate a connection between the persecution and Petitioner’s political opinion. (Dolce v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 9/6/05)
CA1 Upholds IJ Denial of Azeri-Armenian Asylum Claim
The court found that Petitioner failed to connect the past harm he suffered to the Armenian government or its inability to prevent the harm, and also found that he had resided safely elsewhere within Armenia. (Harutyunyan v. Gonzales, 9/2/05)
CA7 Finds IJ Erred in Making Adverse Credibility Determination & Violated Right to Due Process
The Court held that the IJ relied on irrelevant inconsistencies in reaching his adverse credibility finding. It also held that the IJ violated the Petitioner’s right to due process by barring the testimony of her experts. (Rodriguez Galicia v. Gonzales, 9/2/05)
CA9 Holds BIA Abused Its Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen Indian Asylum Claim
The Court found that Petitioner established prima facie eligibility for asylum by showing other family members have been harmed since her asylum hearing. The Court rejected the BIA’s characterization of Petitioner’s affidavit as “self-serving.” (Bhasin v. Gonzales, 9/1/05)
CA3 Finds Retroactive Application of Reinstatement Statute Improper
The court found that §241(a)(5) could not be applied retroactively because it would eliminate Petitioner’s pre-existing right to apply for voluntary departure, which he possessed during his 1988 illegal re-entry. (Dinnal v. Gonzales, 9/1/05)
OCIJ Responds to Videoconferencing Report
In a 8/31/05 letter to the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy criticizes the methodology and several findings made by the group's report on the use of videoconferencing in removal proceedings.
CA2 Finds BIA Erred in Denying Remand of Chinese One-Child Asylum Claim
The court found that the new evidence, including the availability of the wife to testify regarding forced abortion, medical records, and a birth certificate for the second child, was material and not available at the time of the hearing. (Cao v. Gonzales, 8/31/05)
CA2 Rejects Family Planning Claim from Fujian Province
The court found that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof where his native Fujian province has a relatively lax family planning policy that permits a second child if the first child is a girl. (Huang v. Gonzales, 8/29/05)
CA3 Finds CAT Eligibility Is Established If the Cumulative Probability of Torture Exceeds 50%
The court found that the proper application of the CAT regulations merely requires the petitioner to prove it is more likely than not he faces torture and that the cumulative probability of torture exceeds 50%. (Kamara v. Gonzales, 8/29/05)
CA9 Withdraws Somalian Class Action Decision; Orders Remand
CA9 withdrew its prior decision in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jama v. ICE, but remanded with instructions “to vacate the injunction and to reconsider the class certification in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla.” (Ali v. Gonzales, 8/26/05)
District Court Decision That USCIS Must Provide Proof of Status to Persons Granted LPR in Proceedings
District Court decision in a national class action in which the California court granted summary judgment, ruling against DHS' failure to provide timely evidence of permanent residence status following grant of status in removal proceedings. (Santillan v. Gonzalez, 8/24/05)
CA8 Holds Colombian Asylum Applicants Failed to Show They Would Be Harmed Because of Their Political Opinion or Family Membership
The Court found that the Petitioners failed to discuss their political opinion and how it differed from the FARC, and failed to prove that there was a threat against their family. (Bernal-Rendon v. Gonzales, 8/23/05)
CA4 Finds Credit Card Fraud Offense Not an Aggravated Felony Theft
CA4 found the BIA’s conclusion that fraud offenses were subsumed in the definition of theft offenses ignored the distinction between the two and, thus, was “contrary to the intention of Congress, as evidenced by its separate and different treatment of fraud.” (Soliman v. Gonzales, 8/22/05)
CA8 Finds Changed Conditions in Sierra Leone and Upholds BIA’s Asylum Denial
CA8 found that Petitioner failed to establish past persecution or fear of future persecution in Sierra Leone, upholding the finding of changed conditions based on a 2002 State Department Country Report that noted the end of the civil war and improving conditions.(Jalloh v. Gonzales, 8/18/05)
CA11 Finds Marriage and Pregnancy Do Not Constitute Changed Circumstances for MTR in Chinese Asylum Case
CA11 held the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen that was filed one day late. It also found that Petitioner’s marriage and his wife’s pregnancy did not occur in China, and thus did not qualify as a changed circumstance. (Zou v. Gonzales, 8/18/05)
CA1 Remands Albanian Asylum Claim for BIA Clarification
The court remanded to the BIA to clarify why it found that Petitioner had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear, where he testified that he was arrested, imprisoned, deprived of food, beaten, and threatened with death. (Halo v. Gonzales, 8/17/05)
En Banc CA8 Applies Prudential Mootness Doctrine to Detention Habeas
Petitioner’s release and unknown whereabouts rendered his case prudentially moot due to uncertainties, “including whether and where [he] might be apprehended, the changing country conditions in Somalia, and our inability to provide an effective remedy ...” (Ali v. Cangemi, 8/16/05)
CA2 Says Asylum Process Is Not a Search for Reasons to Deport
The court held that the IJ disregarded relevant evidence and applied the wrong legal standards when reviewing the evidence presented by a part-Jewish family from Belarus. (Poradisova v. Gonzales, 8/16/05)
CA6 Finds Young, Attractive Albanian Women Do Not Constitute a Particular Social Group
Petitioner argued that as a young, attractive woman in Albania she risked being kidnapped and forced into prostitution. The Court found that the group was too generalized for asylum purposes and that it was ill-defined. (Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 8/15/05)
CA8 Discusses Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial
While acknowledging it could review some legal and constitutional claims related to the IJ’s denial of a continuance pursuant to new INA §242(a)(2)(D), CA8 held that petitioner’s claim was purely discretionary and, thus, it lacked jurisdiction to review the claim.(Grass v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
CA1 Upholds Adverse Credibility Finding in Chinese Asylum Case
The court sidestepped the issue of whether Petitioner was eligible for asylum based on his girlfriend’s forced abortion, and denied the petition, finding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. (Chen v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
CA9 Finds that Mexican Homosexual with AIDS Is Eligible for Asylum
In finding eligibility for asylum, the Court held that Petitioner, a homosexual from Mexico who was forced by a police officer to perform sex acts, was subjected to past persecution. (Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)