Featured Issue: U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump 2.0
The U.S. immigration court system plays a critical role in upholding due process and ensuring fair hearings for individuals facing deportation. However, since January 20, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented significant changes that challenge the structural integrity of these courts. This page aims to provide up-to-date information on the policy and legal shifts affecting the U.S. immigration court system.
Latest Updates
Updates from EOIR
Browse the Featured Issue: U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump 2.0 collection
EOIR Notice of Revision of Immigration Practitioner/Organization Complaint Form
EOIR issued a 60-day notice of extension and revision of Form EOIR-44, Immigration Practitioner/Organization Complaint Form. The form is used by individuals filing complaints regarding practitioners’ behavior in proceedings before EOIR. Comments are due 9/2/25. (90 FR 29047, 7/2/25)
ICE Directive 11064.4 on Detention and Removal of Parents and Guardians of Minors
ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons issued ICE Directive 11064.4, which provides guidance regarding the detention and removal of noncitizen parents and legal guardians of minor children, including those who have a direct interest in family court or child welfare proceedings in the United States.
DOJ Notice of Revision and Extension of Form EOIR-26
DOJ notice of revision and extension of Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal From a Decision of an Immigration Judge. The form is used to appeal an immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Comments are due 9/2/25. (90 FR 28815, 7/1/25)
CA3 Holds That Federal Conviction for Submitting False Claims to Government Was an Aggravated Felony Involving Deceit
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for submitting false claims to the government under 18 USC §287 was categorically a crime of deceit that cost the government more than $10,000, and was thus an aggravated felony that rendered petitioner removable. (Lanoue v. Att’y Gen., 7/1/25)
CA3 Remands for BIA to Apply Proper Legal Standard on Nexus for Religious Persecution
The court held that, by relying on both subordination– and animus-based tests in evaluating whether the petitioner was persecuted on account of his religion, the IJ and BIA applied the wrong legal standard for the nexus between religion and persecution. (Tipan Lopez v. Att’y Gen., 6/30/25)
BIA Holds No Bond Warranted Where Respondent Provided Conflicting Addresses and Failed to Timely Notify Immigration Court
The BIA held that significant discrepancies over whether respondent lived in New York or Michigan and his failure to file timely change of address notices with the immigration court showed he was a flight risk and did not warrant release on bond. Matter of Akhmedov, 29 I&N Dec. 166 (BIA 2025)
DHS and DOJ IFR Regarding Civil Penalties for Certain Immigration-Related Violations
DHS and DOJ released an interim final rule (IFR) updating procedures for DHS to issue fines for noncitizens who do not depart during the voluntary departure period or after a final removal order, or are apprehended while “improperly” entering the U.S. Comments are due 7/28/25. (90 FR 27439, 6/27/25)
DHS and DOJ Announce Updated Process for Immigration-Related Fines
DHS announced a joint interim final rule with DOJ updating procedures for DHS to issue fines for certain immigration-related violations. The new rule will eliminate a 30-day notice period, allow DHS to send fines by regular mail, and move the appeals process from DOJ to DHS, among other changes.
EOIR Policy Memo Regarding Civil Penalties for Certain Immigration-Related Violations
EOIR Acting Director released a policy memo to provide guidance on DHS and DOJ’s interim final rule, “Imposition and Collection of Civil Penalties for Certain Immigration-Related Violations” as it relates to EOIR. Fines imposed under the rule will no longer be subject to appellate review by BIA.
EOIR Policy Memo 25-33 on Neutrality and Impartiality in Immigration Court Proceedings
EOIR Acting Director Sirce E. Owen issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 25-33 reminding Immigration Judges of their ethical and professional responsibility obligations to treat both parties in a neutral, unbiased, and impartial manner. Judges who do not may be subject to corrective or disciplinary action.
SCOTUS Rules 30-day PFR Deadline Not Jurisdictional, Subject to Equitable Tolling
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a BIA order denying deferral of removal in a withholding-only proceeding is not a final order of removal. The filing deadline to challenge a final order of removal is not a jurisdictional requirement and is subject to equitable tolling. (Riley v. Bondi, 6/26/25)
BIA Holds That Respondent’s Virginia Conviction for Indecent Exposure Was a CIMT
The BIA held that the respondent’s Virginia conviction for indecent exposure constituted a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) because the offense requires an “obscene display or exposure,” which necessarily involves a lewd intent. Matter of Mayorga Ipina, 29 I&N Dec. 110 (BIA 2025)
DHS Publishes Privacy Impact Assessment for the CBP Home App
CBP published a Privacy Impact Assessment to address privacy risks in the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of the information collected by the CBP Home app, which may include the collection of U.S. citizens’ and lawful permanent residents’ information.
CA1 Upholds Denial of Cancellation Where Petitioners Failed to Show Requisite Hardship under INA §240A(b)(1)(D)
Upholding the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petitioners’ challenge to the agency’s factual findings underlying its hardship ruling under INA §240A(b)(1)(D), and denied the remaining legal claims. (Xiquin Xirum v. Bondi, 6/25/25)
CA6 Holds That Denaturalized Petitioner Is Not Removable for Crime Committed While a U.S. Citizen
The court held that the petitioner could not be removed under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) based on his conviction for a crime of child abuse that occurred while he was a U.S. citizen, even though he was later denaturalized. (Gonzalez Castillo v. Bondi, 6/18/25)
CA4 Upholds Cancellation of Removal Denial After Finding EOIR Policy Was Not Binding
The court held that EOIR’s OPPM 17-04 on reserved grants of cancellation of removal was not binding and thus did not create any enforceable right, and that, alternatively, it would not have required a ruling in the petitioner’s case within five days. (Zalaya Orellana v. Bondi, 6/24/25)
SCOTUS Allows DHS to Resume Third-Country Removals Without Advance Notice for Now
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of a district court ruling barring DHS from sending noncitizens to countries where they are not nationals without advance notice as litigation continues. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent. (Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. D.V.D., et al., 6/23/25)
CA2 Finds Petitioner Derived Citizenship from Mother’s Naturalization Where Paternity Was Not Established by Legitimation
The court held that the Salvadoran petitioner’s paternity was not “established by legitimation” under former INA §321, and thus found that the petitioner derived U.S. citizenship through his mother’s naturalization and was not removable. (Lainez v. Bondi, 6/23/25)
CA7 Upholds Asylum Denial After Finding Petitioner Could Reasonably Relocate within India
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner could reasonably relocate within India to avoid persecution, and thus that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. (Singh v. Bondi, 6/23/25)
CA11 Finds That Honduran Business Owners Targeted for Wealth Is Not a Cognizable PSG
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum, finding that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG)—Honduran business owners who are “perceived as having wealth” and are “target[s] of threats and extortion by … criminal gangs”—was overly broad. (Ponce v. Att’y Gen., 6/23/25)
BIA Finds Respondent’s Speculative Eligibility for Adjustment Insufficient to Warrant Termination of Proceedings
The BIA held that termination of removal proceedings is not warranted to allow a respondent to seek adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act based on speculation that USCIS will grant them parole under INA §212(d)(5)(A). Matter of Roque-Izada, 29 I&N Dec. 106 (BIA 2025)
CA9 Holds That BIA Abused Its Discretion by Declining to Remand to IJ for Competency Determination
Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that the record evidence, including head trauma, alcohol abuse, dementia, anxiety, depression, and memory disturbance, clearly contained indicia of incompetence warranting further inquiry by the IJ. (Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, 6/16/25)
BIA Finds IJ Erred in Concluding Respondent Would More Likely Than Not Be Tortured in Detention in Haiti
The BIA concluded that the IJ factually and legally erred in determining that the respondent established that he more likely than not would be tortured in detention in Haiti by or with the acquiescence of a public official upon his removal. Matter of S–S–, 29 I&N Dec. 136 (BIA 2025)
Call for Examples – Affirmative I-589 “dismissed” by USCIS because applicant has a prior Expedited Removal Order (Form I-860)
AILA’s Asylum and Refugee Committee has received reports that some affirmative asylum applications are being dismissed by the Asylum Vetting Center on the basis of alleged expedited removal orders. The committee is currently gathering examples to better understand the scope and nature of this issue.
CA2 Holds That Clear Error Is Appropriate Standard of Review for Evaluating Hardship Determinations
The court held that clear error is the appropriate standard of review for evaluating hardship determinations, and upheld the agency’s finding that the petitioner failed to show the hardship required for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1)(D). (Toalombo Yanez v. Bondi, 6/13/25)