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 Says No Review of MTR Denial Where Removal Order Is Based on Certain Convictions
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(C) precludes review of the BIA's denial of Petitioner’s motion to reopen where the underlying order of removal was based on Petitioner’s controlled substance/aggravated felony convictions. (Durant v. INS, 12/16/04)
CA6 Rejects Challenge to Removability Due to Petitioner’s Failure to Exhaust
The Court rejected Petitioner’s claim that his domestic violence conviction occurred prior to the effective date of IIRIRA since it wasn’t raised below, and held that ex post facto does not apply to civil immigration proceedings. (Csekinek v. INS, 12/15/04)
CA7 Finds That Grant of Stay of Removal Does Not Result in Automatic Stay of Voluntary Departure
CA7 rejected the argument that a grant of a stay of removal implicitly results in a stay of voluntary departure; a stay of voluntary departure may only be obtained via an explicit request to the Court after proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Alimi v. Ashcroft, 12/10/04)
Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) Memorandum "Remand Of Immigration Cases" dated December 8, 2004
Memorandum from Thomas W. Hussey, Director, Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), to all OIL attorneys, discussing circumstances and procedures where OIL should recommend remand of a matter pending in federal court in the interest of justice or to preserve DOJ credibility.
CA9 Looks to Restitution Order to Determine Conviction for Welfare Fraud is Aggravated Felony
CA9 held that the IJ properly looked to the restitution order contained in Petitioner’s plea agreement to determine that her conviction for welfare fraud involved more than $10,000 in loss to the State of California and, thus, constituted an aggravated felony. (Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 12/1/04)
CA1 Vacates Denial of Asylum for Dual Ugandan/Rwandan Citizen
The court held that the BIA’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence where Petitioner presented an adequate account of events, supplied sufficient corroborating evidence, and had a genuine, subjective fear of persecution. (Mukamusoni v. Ashcroft, 12/1/04)
AG Remands Question of Finality of Decision to BIA
The Attorney General remanded the case in light of Matter of A-H-, on the question of whether a BIA decision is final and effective while the case is pending Attorney General review on certification. (Matter of E-L-H, 12/1/04)
AG Denies Request for Review of Matter of C-Y-Z-
The Attorney General denied the INS Commissioner’s request for review of Matter of C-Y-Z- which held that an asylum applicant whose spouse was forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization can establish past persecution. (Matter of C-Y-Z-, 12/1/04)
United States and Canada to Implement Safe Third Country Agreement on Asylum
USCIS press release announcing the implementation of a bilateral agreement between the United States and Canada affecting asylum seekers at U.S.-Canada land border ports-of-entry, and transiting through the United States or Canada during removal by the other country.
DHS Final Rule on US-Canada Agreement on Asylum Claims
DHS rule codifies the US-Canada agreement on which government decides certain asylum requests, sets USCIS asylum officers' authority in expedited removal, and codifies the definitions of "credible fear of persecution" and "credible fear of torture." (69 FR 69479, 11/29/04)
CA9 Vacates AWO Case and Remands for BIA Opinion
The Ninth Circuit vacated an AWO decision because the AWO prevented the court from knowing the BIA's actual reasons for its decision, and thus prevented the court from discerning its own jurisdiction. (Lanza v. Ashcroft, 11/22/04)
CA7 Finds the Numerical Limitation on Motions to Reopen Is Not Jurisdictional
The court reasoned that successive motions to reopen “do not postpone the taking of an appeal to the court of appeals from the order of removal.” Thus, the court concluded that it could review the merits of the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s fourth motion to reopen. (Joshi v. Ashcroft, 11/19/04)
CA9 Strikes Down Reinstatement Regulation
The court invalidated the regulation permitting DHS officers to unilaterally reinstate a prior order without a hearing. The court held that the regulation was ultra vires to INA § 240, which requires an immigration judge to determine removabililty. (Morales-Izquierdo v. Ashcroft, 11/18/04)
ICE Memorandum on Orders of Supervision
A 11/12/2004 memorandum from Victor X. Cerda, Acting Director, ICE Detention and Removal Operations, standardizes the reporting requirements for individuals released under an order of supervision or released on recognizance.
Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Holding DUI Not a Crime of Violence
Analysis of Supreme Court ruling that state driving under the influence (DUI) offenses with a mens rea of negligence or less are not crimes of violence, as defined under 18 U.S.C. §16, and therefore are not aggravated felonies under INA §101(a)(43)(F). (Leocal v. Ashcroft, 11/9/04)
Unanimous Supreme Court Rules DUI Is Not "Crime of Violence"
The Supreme Court held that state DUI statutes that do not have a mens rea component or require only a showing of negligence in the operation of a vehicle are not "crimes of violence" under 18 USC §16, which would have made the offense an aggravated felony. (Leocal v. Ashcroft, 11/9/04)
CA1 On Habeas Review of Derivative Citizenship Claim
The court held that petitioner’s derivative citizenship claim was procedurally defaulted because petitioner could have, but did not seek direct review of the claim in the court of appeals. (Rivera-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 11/4/04)
CA7 Holds it Lacks Jurisdiction to Decide Whether Simple Possession is an AgFel
The court found that petitioners' simple possession offenses constituted controlled substance offenses which, under INA § 242(a)(2)(C), independently deprived the court of jurisdiction to review whether the offenses were aggravated felonies. (Yanez-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 11/2/04)
CA3 on OIL Procedures Permitting Remand in Persecution Cases
Under the new procedures, OIL, in consultation with EOIR and DHS, may remand cases involving persecution claims where the administrative record is out of date and not appropriate for judicial review. (Ambartsoumian v. Ashcroft, 11/1/04)
Minutes of 10/28/04 USCIS Liaison Meeting
The 10/28/04 meeting with USCIS' Operations and Legal offices included discussions on numerous issues, including 245(i) and (k), AC21, the RFE memo, the 800 number, expedites for persons in proceedings, security checks, Infopass, and ASC scheduling.
CA3 Remands for Panel Review of Novel Refugee Issue
The court found petitioner’s contention that the INS must first terminate refugee status before initiating removal proceedings “consistent with the text and some of the legislative history of the INA” and that the BIA erred in affirming without opinion. (Smriko v. Ashcroft, 10/26/04)
CA9 Refuses to Extend Lujan-Armendariz to Convictions That Have Not Yet Been Expunged
CA9 held that a state drug conviction that could be expunged and would otherwise qualify for first offender treatment, but has not yet been expunged, can serve as the basis for removal. (Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 10/26/04)
CA10 Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Whether BIA Improperly Applied AWO Regulation
The court held that neither the INA nor the Administrative Procedure Act authorized its review of the BIA's decision to affirm petitioner’s appeal without opinion. (Tsegay v. Ashcroft, 10/26/04)
CA9 Finds Violation of the Right to Choice of Counsel
The court held that petitioners were denied their due process right to counsel of their choice when the IJ banned an entire law firm from representing them at their deportation hearing. (Baltazar-Alcazar v. Ashcroft, 10/21/04)
EOIR Memo on Contract Interpreter Services
EOIR memorandum 04-08, titled Contract Interpreter Services, establishes policy concerning the use of contract interpreter services during unscheduled telephonic interpreter services, hearings, and waivers. Memo supercedes 6/5/03 memo.