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 Remands Case Involving Defective NTA Under Pereira in Light of Recent Supreme Court Decision
The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. (Lorenzo Lopez v. Garland, 6/8/21)
ICE Privacy Waiver Authorizing Disclosure to a Third Party (Form 60-001)
Fillable form 60-001 to authorize the DHS to disclose information and/or records about you to a third party.
BIA Issues Ruling on Changed Circumstances Exception to the One-Year Filing Bar for Asylum Applications
The BIA ruled that a mere continuation of an activity in the United States that is substantially similar to the activity from which an initial claim of past persecution is alleged cannot establish changed circumstances under INA §208(a)(2)(D). Matter of D-G-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 297 (BIA 2021)
CA2 Certifies Question of Whether New York Petit Larceny Constitutes a CIMT to State Court of Appeals
The court certified to New York State Court of Appeals the question of whether an intent to “appropriate” property requires an intent to deprive the owner of property permanently or under circumstances where their property rights are substantially eroded. (Ferreiras Veloz v. Garland, 6/7/21)
EOIR Provides Information on EOIR Fees and Fee Waivers
EOIR issued PM 21-24, concurrently rescinding and cancelling PM 21-10, Fees. EOIR encourages that filers at BIA pay any applicable fees using the EOIR Payment Portal. Availability of fee waivers is established by regulation.
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Honduran Petitioner After Finding Her PSG of Family Membership Was Not a Central Reason for Threats
The court held that the Honduran petitioner did not face past persecution based on her membership in a particular social group (PSG) consisting of her family; rather, the court found she was targeted because she owned land that once belonged to her father. (Padilla-Franco v. Garland, 6/2/21)
CA9 Holds That Departure Bar Does Not Limit an IJ’s Sua Sponte Reopening Authority
Granting the petition for review, the court held that the departure bar provision in 8 CFR §1003.23(b)(1) does not apply in the context of sua sponte reopening. (Balerio Rubalcaba v. Garland, 6/2/21)
EOIR 30-Day Extension of Comment Period on Proposed Revisions to Form EOIR-29
EOIR 30-day extension of a comment period on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-29, which was previously announced at 86 FR 12497 on 3/3/21. Comments are now due 7/2/21. (86 FR 29595, 6/2/21)
Supreme Court Rejects Ninth Circuit’s “Deemed-True-or-Credible Rule” as Irreconcilable with the INA
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit’s rule stating that, in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility determination by the IJ or BIA, a reviewing court must treat a noncitizen’s testimony as credible and true could not be reconciled with the INA. (Garland v. Dai, 6/1/21)
CA11 Finds Salvadoran Petitioner Whose Family Was Targeted by Gang Failed to Satisfy Nexus Requirement for Asylum
Denying the petition for review, the court held that the Salvadoran petitioner was ineligible for asylum, because the gang that targeted her family had done so only as a means to the end of obtaining funds, not because of any animus against her family. (Sanchez-Castro v. Att’y Gen., 6/1/21)
Office of The Principal Legal Advisor, Miami, Florida - Guidance On Requesting Prosecutorial Discretion (June 2021)
This document provides guidance on requesting Prosecutorial Discretion with the Miami Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA Miami) in accordance with the Interim Guidance to OPLA Attorneys Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities issued on May 27, 2021.
CRS Issues Report on the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity
CRS issued an updated report on the immigration consequences of criminal activity, including criminal grounds for inadmissibility and deportation, CIMTs, aggravated felony, crimes affecting “good moral character,” relief from removal, impact on naturalization, issues for Congress, and more.
CA9 Says Government May Parole Returning LPR into U.S. Without Proving He or She Meets an INA §101(a)(13)(C) Exception
The court held that the government is not required to prove that a returning lawful permanent resident (LPR) meets an exception under INA §101(a)(13)(C) before it can parole the returning LPR into the United States for prosecution under INA §212(d)(5). (Vazquez Romero v. Garland, 5/28/21)
CA4 Finds That EAJA Does Not Apply to Habeas Applicants Seeking Release from Civil Detention
The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not apply to a habeas proceeding seeking release from civil detention, and thus affirmed the district court’s order denying the petitioner attorney’s fees under the Act. (Obando-Segura v. Garland, 5/28/21)
CA8 Upholds BIA’s Conclusion That There Was “Reason to Believe” Petitioner Was Involved in Illicit Drug Trafficking
Applying the “reason to believe” standard under INA §212(a)(2)(C), the court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that there was probable cause to believe that petitioner was involved in illicit drug trafficking and was thus inadmissible. (Rojas v. Garland, 5/27/21)
ICE Issues Interim Guidance Regarding Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities
ICE issued interim guidance to all OPLA attorneys to guide them in appropriately executing interim civil immigration enforcement and removal priorities and exercising prosecutorial discretion. Note, on 8/19/21, OPLA suspended reliance on this guidance due to litigation.
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus Brief on Expansion of Demore’s Holdings
AILA and partners submitted an amicus brief in Ayom v. Garland to the Eighth Circuit, urging the court to decline the government’s invitation to expand Demore’s holding beyond the dubious facts of that case. Amici curiae ask the court to affirm the judgment of the district court.
AILA DOS Liaison Q&As (5/27/21)
Official AILA/DOS liaison Q&As from the 5/27/21 meeting. Topics include: visa bulletin questions, consular post operations and reopening, NIEs, IV processing, voluntary return, SB-1s, Waiver Review Division inquiries, the Blanket L standard of review, NVC processing and procedures, EB-5s and more.
EOIR Announces Dedicated Docket Process for More Expeditious Immigration Hearings
EOIR issued a memo establishing a dedicated docket to certain individuals in removal proceedings with a focus on the adjudication of family cases as designated by DHS.
CA4 Holds That IJs Have a Duty to Develop the Record in Immigration Court Proceedings
The court held that IJs have a legal duty to fully develop the record—a duty which becomes particularly important in pro se cases, and which extends to proceedings in which noncitizens articulate a proposed particular social group (PSG). (Arevalo Quintero v. Garland, 5/26/21)
CA9 Affirms Denial of Deferral of Removal to Jamaican Petitioner Who Claimed She Suffered Physical Abuse by Former Domestic Partner
Upholding the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the court held that the record did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not that the petitioner would suffer future torture if she returned to Jamaica. (Dawson v. Garland, 5/26/21)
AILA and Partners Urge DHS to Stop Detentions and Transfers as COVID-19 Cases Spread in ICE Custody
AILA joined Immigration Justice Campaign Local Partner, the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN), in urging DHS to suspend the practice of detaining and transferring immigrants as COVID-19 cases in ICE custody trend upward.
Former Immigration Judges Ask AG Garland to Review and Rescind Prior AG Certifications
The Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges sent a letter to AG Garland urging him to review and rescind AG decisions issued under the Trump administration, noting that "the vast majority of those decisions overturned decades of substantive and procedural immigration law and policy."
CA1 Upholds Denial of Cancellation of Removal to Ecuadorian Petitioner with Two Young Children
The court held that the BIA did not err when it found that the petitioner, who had a 12-year-old son and a five-year-old daughter, had not met his burden to show that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his family. (Tacuri-Tacuri v. Garland, 5/24/21)
Supreme Court Rules That Each of INA §276(d)’s Statutory Requirements Is Mandatory
The U.S. Supreme Court held that each of INA §276(d)’s statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack on a prior removal order is mandatory, and that the respondent was not excused from making the first two showings set forth in §276(d). (United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 5/24/21)