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
CA10 Finds That BIA Lacks Authority to Reconsider Removal Order of Petitioner Who Reentered Illegally
Denying the petition for review, the court held that INA §241(a)(5) clearly strips the BIA of authority to review a prior order of removal or to grant any relief provided by the INA once a removed noncitizen illegally reenters the United States. (Zapata-Chacon v. Garland, 10/25/22)
What Happened When I Actually Helped a Military Service Member
AILA Pro Bono Committee member Samantha Jiménez shares two inspiring examples of cases she was able to resolve for Military Service members through AILA's Military Assistance Program, using her immigration law expertise to give families much needed safety and security as their loved ones deploy.
Available MAP Cases
Use your immigration knowledge to help a military service member in need today. Take a case through the AILA Military Assistance Program’s new online system! Search by case type or location, share cases with colleagues, and sign up directly for a case through this easy-to-use online portal.
CA4 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Petitioner Who Witnessed Gang Activity and Filed Police Report
The court held that the petitioner’s proposed social group consisting of “Salvadoran women who are witnesses to gang criminal activity and targeted because they filed a police report” was not a cognizable particular social group (PSG) under the INA. (Morales v. Garland, 10/24/22)
CA9 Says It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Expedited Removal Orders, Including Review of Constitutional Claims
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review, finding that Congress has clearly precluded it from asserting jurisdiction over the merits of individual expedited removal orders, even with regard to constitutional challenges. (Mendoza-Linares v. Garland, 10/24/22)
CA9 Remands CAT Claim Where Record Showed That Petitioner’s Attackers Were Guatemalan Police Officers
Granting the petition for review, the court held that the record showed that two of the petitioner’s attackers were police officers, and that the police officers’ participation in his attack showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government. (De Leon Lopez v. Garland, 10/21/22)
CA1 Holds That BIA Applied Incorrect Standard in Upholding IJ’s Denial of CAT Relief to Honduran Petitioner
The court concluded that, by requiring a showing of willful acceptance rather than willful blindness, the BIA applied the incorrect standard of review in upholding the IJ’s denial of Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief to the Honduran petitioner. (H.H. v. Garland, 10/21/22)
CA1 Says BIA Erred in Holding That People Who Are Incorrectly Perceived to Be Gang Members Cannot Be a PSG
Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court found that the BIA erred in holding that a group of people who are incorrectly perceived to be members of gangs cannot, as a categorical matter, constitute a particular social group (PSG) under the INA. (Chavez v. Garland, 10/21/22)
AILA and Partners Send Letter to Congress Urging Creation of Permanent Protections for Dreamers
AILA and partners sent a letter urging congressional leaders to swiftly pass legislative protections for Dreamers.
CA9 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Chinese Petitioner Who Claimed He Was Persecuted in China for His Christian Faith
The court found that the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, considering the totality of the administrative record, particularly the IJ’s findings about the petitioner’s demeanor and lack of candor. (Dong v. Garland, 10/19/22)
EOIR 30-Day Notice and Request for Comment on Proposed Changes to Form EOIR-26
EOIR 30-day notice and request for comment on proposed changes to Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge. Comments are due 11/17/22. (87 FR 63101, 10/18/22)
Obtaining a Stay of Removal Through Litigation
AILA author Robert Pauw explains how he determines whether a potential client might be well-served by pursuing federal litigation, including a situation where a removal order is final and unappealable but the person is eligible for some type of collateral relief.
What Are the Parts of a Notice to Appear (NTA)?
Removal proceedings begin with the filing of a Notice to Appear (NTA). This tutorial will explain what is found on an NTA.
Speaker: Cain Oulahan
District Court Rules That DHS May Continue to Accept Renewal Applications for Current DACA Recipients
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen issued an order ruling that DHS may continue to accept and grant Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal applications for current DACA recipients who obtained DACA status on or before 7/16/21. (Texas, et al. v. United States, et al., 10/14/22)
CA1 Finds BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Remand Based on New Evidence
The court upheld the BIA’s decision to deny the petitioner’s motion to remand based on new evidence—namely, that the petitioner’s life partner had been diagnosed with brain cancer—finding that there was no error of law in the BIA’s explanation of its conclusion. (Moreno v. Garland, 10/14/22)
T Visas: How to Screen Consultations for Possible T Visa Relief
Learn how to ask the right questions so you don’t overlook possible T visa eligibility.
Speaker: Amy Cheung
Six Tips to Prepare for Direct Examination in an Asylum Hearing
How to organize and prepare for direct examination in court.
Speaker: Johanna Kelley
CA2 Says in Context of VTC Hearing IJ Completes Proceedings Under INA §242(b)(2) in Same Location Where They Began
The court held that, in the context of a video teleconference (VTC) hearing, an IJ completes proceedings under INA §242(b)(2) in the same location where they began unless there is evidence of a change of venue, and also denied the petitioner’s motion for a stay. (Sarr v. Garland, 10/12/22)
CA9 Declines to Rehear Mendez-Colin v. Garland En Banc
The court denied the rehearing en banc of Mendez-Colin v. Garland, an unpublished opinion in which the court applied Singh v. Garland to conclude that the petitioner had not received statutorily compliant notice before his removal hearing. (Mendez-Colin v. Garland, 10/12/22)
CA9 Declines to Rehear Singh v. Garland En Banc
The court denied the rehearing en banc of Singh v. Garland, in which it held that if a noncitizen does not receive a Notice to Appear (NTA) in a single document, their in absentia removal order is subject to rescission pursuant to INA §240(b)(5)(C)(ii). (Singh v. Garland, 10/12/22)
AILA Members’ Letter to the Editor Template – Protect DACA/Dreamers
We encourage AILA members to personalize and submit a Letter to the Editor in response to an article that appears in their local paper focused on immigration; the template can serve as a guide as you urge Congress to act.
CA3 Finds Permissive Inference in Pennsylvania Shoplifting Statute Did Not Impermissibly Shift Burden onto Defendants
Where the Pennsylvania statute under which petitioner had been convicted of shoplifting directed juries to infer intent to steal whenever someone conceals merchandise, the court held that the inference was only permissive, and denied the petition for review. (Baghdad v. Att’y Gen., 10/11/22)
Agenda from AILA EOIR Liaison Meeting with EOIR
AILA provides the agenda from the 10/11/22 meeting with EOIR.
Featured Issue: Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)
Follow this page for more updates on the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). AILA will update this page on the winddown as they become available.
CA1 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Nunc Pro Tunc Relief to Petitioner Who Was Removable on Other Grounds
The court found that the BIA did not err in denying the petitioner nunc pro tunc relief under former INA §212(c), finding that nunc pro tunc relief was not available because the petitioner would still be removable even if he were granted such relief. (Reyes-Batista v. Garland, 10/7/22)