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
CA9 Holds It May Review Question of Law or Mixed Question of Law and Fact in Challenge to Cancellation Denial Based on Lack of Hardship
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(D) grants it jurisdiction to review a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact presented in a challenge to an agency denial of cancellation of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship. (De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland, 9/27/22)
ICE 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form I-352
ICE 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form I-352, Immigration Bond. Comments are due 10/27/22. (87 FR 58515, 9/27/22)
EOIR Updates FOIA Request Process
EOIR announced that FOIA requestors are strongly encouraged to submit FOIA and Privacy Act (PA) requests through EOIR’s Public Access Link. Effective December 1, 2022, EOIR will no longer accept FOIA or PA requests by email.
CA9 Holds That California’s Ban on Privately Run Immigration Detention Facilities Is Unconstitutional
The en banc court vacated the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief, holding that California Assembly Bill (AB) 32 would violate the Constitution by giving California a virtual power of review over ICE’s detention decisions. (The Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom, et al., 9/26/22)
CA9 Finds BIA Legally Erred in Denying Sua Sponte Reopening to Petitioner
The court held that the vacatur of a conviction underlying a removal order does not excuse a late motion to reopen and thus that the petitioner’s motion to reopen was untimely, but found that the BIA erred as a matter of law in denying sua sponte reopening. (Lara-Garcia v. Garland, 9/26/22)
CA9 Holds That BIA Erred by Failing to Assess Salvadoran Petitioner’s Aggregate Risk of Torture
The court held that the BIA erred by failing to adequately consider the petitioner’s aggregate risk of torture from multiple sources, and found that the BIA also erred in rejecting the petitioner’s expert testimony. (Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland, 6/24/22, amended 9/23/22)
How to Apply for the 212(d)(3) Waiver to the Consulate
This video will demonstrate how to prepare a 212(d)(3) waiver, and how it is submitted to the US Consulate.
Speaker: Camiel Becker
How to Change Venue for a Removal Defense Case
Pleadings requirements, acknowledging service of NTA, and stating relief. How to serve DHS, including the change of address form.
Speaker: Flomy Javier Diza
How to Interview a Client for an Asylum Declaration in a Removal Defense Case
In a removal case, what are the best practices for interviewing a client for an asylum declaration?
Speaker: Evangeline Abriel
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)
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.
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)