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
AG Says Firearms Conviction Expunged by State Law Still Holds for Immigration Purposes
Citing the INA’s definition of “conviction,” the AG ruled that a firearms conviction expunged under California law still renders the respondent removable. (Matter of Marroquin-Garcia, 1/18/05)
CA10 Upholds Retroactive Application of Reinstatement Statute
The court held that application of INA § 241(a)(5) would not have impermissible retroactive effect because petitioner was not eligible for adjustment of status before INA § 241(a)(5)’s April 1, 1997 effective date. (Fernandez-Vargas v. Ashcroft, 1/12/05)
Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Holding that Inadmissible Aliens May Not Be Detained Indefinitely
The Supreme Court held that its decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, finding indefinite detention unconstitutional, applies to non-admitted foreign nationals. (Clark v. Martinez, 1/12/05)
Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Holding that U.S. May Deport Noncitizens Without Consent of Receiving Country
The Supreme Court held that INA §241(b)(2)(e)(iv) allows removal to a country without the advance consent of that country's government. (Jama v. ICE, 1/12/05)
ICE Re-Circulates Guidance on ICE Transportation, Detention, and Processing Requirements
ICE re-circulated a 10/18/04 memo titled “Detention Prioritization and Notice to Appear Documentary Requirements” and outlined how the guidance should be used to assist ICE officials while conducting immigration enforcement operations.
CA9 Says Hearsay Evidence From Self-Interested Witness Insufficient to Prove Removability
Petitioner’s removability for “alien smuggling” was not established by “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence” because the only information concerning his activities was contained in the hearsay affidavit of a self-interested witness. (Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 1/10/05)
CA6 Finds No Continuous Physical Presence
CA6 found that continuous physical presence was not established for purposes of cancellation of removal, even though the IJ determined that the last entry occurred in 1985, and that back tax returns had been submitted for all of the years in question. (Santana-Albarran v. Ashcroft, 01/10/05)
AILF Q&AS on Succar v. Ashcroft
In a landmark decision in Succar v. Ashcroft, the First Circuit ruled that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8) was invalid because it was inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress in INA § 245(a) to allow parolees to adjust status. AILF prepared Q&As on how others might benefit from this decision.
CA1 Declines to Address Whether “Whistleblowers” Are a Social Group
The court avoided the issue of whether “whistleblowers” constitutes a particular social group because it found that Petitioner failed to show that he suffered persecution on account of his membership in such a group. (Da Silva v. Ashcroft, 1/5/05)
CA1 Strikes Down Arriving Alien Adjustment Regulation
In a landmark decision, the court held that 8 CFR §245.1(c)(8) was invalid because it was inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress in INA §245(a) to allow parolees to adjust status. (Succar v. Ashcroft, 1/5/05)
ICE/EOIR Final Rule on Countries to Which Foreign Nationals May Be Removed
Joint ICE/EOIR final rule providing new procedures for designation and determination of a country for removal, acceptance by a country is not required, and the determination of a "country" does not require the existence or functionality of a government. (70 FR 661, 1/5/05)
CA9 Finds Nevada Conviction For Attempting to Be Under the Influence of THC Is Not A Controlled Substance Offense
CA9 found that a conviction for “attempting to be under the influence of . . . THC-carboxylic acid” was not a removable offense because it was not shown to be a conviction for other than possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use. (Prides Medina v. Ashcroft, 1/4/05)
CA11 Says Denaturalization Required for Individual Who Committed Acts Underlying Drug Conviction Prior to Taking Oath of Allegiance
The Court upheld the finding that Petitioner was required to be denaturalized due to his commission of a controlled substance offense prior to taking the oath, even though his actual conviction was not sought and sustained until later. (Jean-Baptiste v. United States, 1/4/05)
CA3 Finds IJ’s Conclusions on Asylum Inconsistent with Record
The court found that the IJ’s ruling against Petitioner on whether she was subjected to “state-sponsored” religious persecution in China was inconsistent with record and not supported by substantial evidence. (Wu v. Ashcroft, 1/4/05)
CA3 Finds Lack of Authenticated Corroborating Documentation Is Not a Basis for Adverse Credibility
The court found that the BIA improperly sustained the IJ’s adverse credibility finding which was based primarily on Petitioner’s failure to provide authenticated documents in corroboration of his claim. (Leia v. Ashcroft, 1/4/05)
CA1 Upholds IJ/BIA Refusal to Reopen In Absentia Order
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order where Petitioner failed to establish lack of notice. (Sousa v. Ashcroft, 1/3/05)
CA9 Holds That Incarceration in a County Jail Constitutes Confinement “To a Penal Institution” for the Purposes of INA § 101(f)(7)
Petitioner’s incarceration in a county jail for more than 180 days subsequent to a conviction for vehicular manslaughter constituted confinement “to a penal institution” for the purposes of INA § 101(f)(7). (Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 1/3/05)
CA7 Holds Illinois Conviction For “Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse” is “Sexual Abuse of a Minor”
The Court found that a conviction under 720 ILCS 5/12-16(b) (“aggravated criminal sexual abuse”) was properly classed as an aggravated felony u because the activity in which Petitioner engaged constituted “sexual abuse of a minor.”(Espinoza-Franco v. Ashcroft, 1/3/05).
EOIR Memo on Good Moral Character and Filing Appeals in Detained Cases
EOIR memo 90-5, on applications which require establishing good moral character and filing appeal briefs in detained cases.
CA7 Finds Offense of “Aggravated Fleeing” is a CIMT
The Court held that a conviction for “Aggravated Fleeing from a Police Officer” in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-204.1(a)(1) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude and is thus a deportable offense. (Mei v. Ashcroft, 12/29/04)
EOIR Memorandum on Safe Third Country Implementation
The 12/29/04 memo provides guidance to Immigration Judges on their role in the implementation of the U.S. and Canada Safe Third Country agreement in the immigration courts.
CA9 Holds BIA Acted Ultra Vires In Issuing Order of Removal In the First Instance (Updated 5/21/07)
The Court held that the BIA exceeded its authority in entering an order of removal in the first instance after reversing the IJ’s grant of discretionary relief. (Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 12/28/04)
CA9 Says INA Does Not Bar Judicial Review of Denial of Withholding of Removal By One With Aggravated Felony Conviction
CA9 found jurisdiction to review BIA’s denial of withholding of removal, notwithstanding INA § 242(a)(2)(C), because denial of relief was not predicated on Petitioner’s having suffered a conviction for aggravated felony, but rather on merits of the claim. (Unuakhaulu v. Ashcroft, 12/20/04)
CA10 Rejects Equal Protection Argument for Treatment of Lapsed Foreign Drug Conviction As a Disposition
CA10 distinguished a “lapsed” conviction for drug possession under Korean law from a FFOA ruling because: Congress is less familiar with expungements under foreign law and the Petitioner received a longer period of probation than permitted under the FFOA. (Elkins v. Comfort, 12/20/04)
CA2 Grants Nunc Pro Tunc Relief to Afford Opportunity to Apply for §212(c) Relief
The court granted Petitioners the opportunity to apply for 212(c) relief where they were wrongly denied the opportunity and had accumulated more than five years of imprisonment for aggravated felonies. (Edwards v. INS, Falconi v. INS, 12/17/04)