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
How to Request a Fee Waiver in Immigration Court
When eligible, it is possible to request a fee waiver for defensive applications in Immigration Court. This tutorial will explain how to request a fee waiver as well as strategic considerations.
Speaker: Christopher Kozoll
Importance of an I-213 in Removal Proceedings
In removal proceedings, there is often a reference to an “I-213”. This tutorial will explain what an I-213 is and why it is very important to removal proceedings.
Speaker: Cain Oulahan
Late Filings in Immigration Court
Can I include evidence if I missed the call up date? Emergency motions to accept the late-file documents, what to say on the call or voice message.
Speaker: Ilana Greenstein
Lodging an Asylum Application at Immigration Court Without a Hearing
Forms that need to go with this filing in a basic case; how to deliver the form to the court; what you will receive back from the court administrator.
Speaker: Johanna Kelley
CA5 Upholds BIA’s Asylum Denial to Petitioner Who Was Beaten by Members of India’s Ruling Political Party
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s asylum claim, finding that the two beatings and subsequent injuries the petitioner had suffered at the hands of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), India’s ruling political party, did not constitute past persecution. (Kumar v. Garland, 9/21/22)
CA5 Holds That Final Removal Order Does Not Trigger Stop-Time Rule for Cancellation Purposes
The court held that a final order of removal does not trigger the stop-time rule, and thus found that the petitioners had accrued the necessary 10 years to satisfy the physical presence requirement to be eligible for cancellation of removal. (Parada v. Garland, 9/1/22)
Entering an Appearance in Immigration Court or the BIA
Navigating the e-registry, filing a new appearance between the Board and the Court.
Speaker: Ilana Greenstein
CA1 Holds That Persons Subject to Reinstated Removal Orders Are Barred from Reopening Orders of Removal
After finding that persons subject to reinstated removal orders following unlawful reentry are barred from reopening their removal orders, the court held that BIA correctly found petitioner was barred from reopening his removal order by INA §241(a)(5). (Garcia Sarmiento v. Garland, 8/17/22)
AILA Provides Members with Updated Recommendations in Responding to Detention Center Closures
AILA is tracking updates that have led to or may lead to immigration detention facility closures. This updated resource offers recommendations for seizing the opportunity to call for release of clients to facilitate continued local representation and how to anticipate transfers out of state.
CA2 Finds BIA Erred in Denying Cancellation Applicant a Continuance to Allow Him to Present Relevant Testimony
The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the petitioner a brief continuance, because the denial prevented him from presenting relevant and material testimony in support of his cancellation of removal application. (Martinez Roman v. Garland, 9/15/22)
CA3 Holds That Denial of Continuance for Counsel to Prepare to Adequately Represent Petitioner Violated His Right to Counsel
The court held that the BIA and IJ violated the petitioner’s due process right to a fundamentally fair hearing and his statutory right to counsel by denying his counsel’s request for a 30-day continuance so that she could prepare to adequately represent him. (Freza v. Att’y Gen., 9/15/22)
EOIR Final Rule on Limited Representation of Pro Se Individuals
EOIR final rule on limited representation of pro se individuals, which permits practitioners to provide document assistance to pro se individuals by entering a limited appearance through new Forms EOIR-60 or EOIR-61. The rule is effective 11/14/22. (87 FR 56247, 9/14/22)
CA3 Concludes That INA §212(h) Waivers Cannot Be Used for Cancellation of Removal Purposes
Denying the petition for review, the court found that the petitioner could not use the INA §212(h) waiver to excuse his 2015 drug conviction, which rendered him ineligible for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). (Lopez v. Att’y Gen., 9/9/22)
CA5 Upholds BIA’s Conclusion That Petitioner Failed to Show His Stepchildren Were “Qualifying Relatives” Under INA §240A(b)(1)(D)
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the BIA erred in concluding that he had failed to offer sufficient evidence that his stepchildren were U.S. citizens and thus “qualifying relatives” for purposes of his cancellation of removal application. (Agustin-Matias v. Garland, 9/9/22)
CA6 Defers to BIA’s Ultimate Factual Finding That Salvadoran Government Was Able to Protect Petitioners from MS-13 Gang
The court held that the BIA did not err in interpreting and applying the asylum and withholding of removal statutes to conclude that petitioners had not shown that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control the MS-13 gang. (Rodriguez de Palucho, et al. v. Garland, 9/9/22)
EOIR to Relocate Arlington Immigration Court
EOIR announced that the Arlington Immigration Court will end normal operations at noon on October 6, 2022, to prepare for the court’s relocation to Annandale, VA. All hearings scheduled at the Arlington Immigration Court after October 5 will be rescheduled to the Annandale Immigration Court.
New Public Charge Regulation Welcome, and More Welcoming
AILA President Jeremy McKinney and American Immigration Council Managing Director of Programs Jorge Loweree respond to the new public charge regulations published today by the Biden Administration.
Dealing with Trauma to Discover Your Client's Story
Asylum seekers have much trauma that prevents them from telling their account of persecution. Here, we will provide tips on how to help your client discover their story and help the attorney tell their client’s story.
Speaker: Sarah Pitney
District Court Approves Settlement in Case Challenging ICE’s Unlawful Detention of Unaccompanied Minors
The district court approved a settlement agreement whereby the government agreed to dismiss its appeal, and the district court’s 9/21/21 judgment and five-year permanent injunction against ICE became final. (Garcia Ramirez, et al. v. ICE, et al., 9/7/22)
EOIR to Open Sterling Immigration Court
EOIR announced it will open a new immigration court in Sterling, VA on October 3, 2022, and will include 19 immigration judges. EOIR is in the process of sending official notification of a change of hearing location to all parties whose cases are reassigned to the new court.
Practice Alert: ICE Provides OPLA Field Office Contact Email Addresses
Following member reports that ICE Duty Attorney email addresses were no longer being used in certain jurisdictions, AILA requested updated contact information from ICE and clarification on the use of duty attorney email addresses.
DHS/ICE/OPLA Chief Counsel Contact Information
ICE provides AILA with contact information for OPLA Chief Counsels in order to seek further review of a prosecutorial discretion (PD) determination or to identify systemic issues relating to PD in the Chief Counsel’s location.
CA1 Finds BIA Did Not Err in Vacating IJ’s Grant of Cancellation to Guatemalan Petitioner
The court upheld the BIA’s vacatur of the IJ’s grant of cancellation of removal as to the petitioner, who argued that his U.S.-citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed to Guatemala. (Domingo-Mendez v. Garland, 8/31/22)
CA9 Finds BIA Erred in Concluding There Were Serious Reasons to Believe Petitioner Committed Serious Nonpolitical Crime
The court held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s determination that the Salvadoran petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal based on the serious nonpolitical crime bar pursuant to INA §241(b)(3)(B)(iii). (Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland, 8/31/22)
CA9 Finds BIA Erred in Holding That Earlier Adverse Credibility Finding Barred Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen
The court held that the BIA erred in concluding that the IJ’s prior adverse credibility finding barred the petitioner’s motion to reopen and rendered his new evidence regarding changed country conditions for Sikhs in India immaterial. (Singh v. Garland, 8/30/22)