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
Text of the Community Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 6094)
Text of the Community Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 6094), introduced on 9/19/06 by Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and passed by the House on 9/21/06 by a vote of 328-95.
Summary of Rep. Sensenbrenner’s Enforcement-Only Bills Reflecting Reshuffled Bill Content
AILA’s updated summaries of new enforcement-only bills introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner on 9/15/06 and repackaged on 9/19/06. The three original bills were repackaged as two, with the tunnel provisions now contained in an existing stand-alone bill.
CA2 Says Persecution Does Not Require Serious Injury
The court found that the BIA does not require applicants claiming persecution to show permanent or serious injury and that persecution encompasses a variety of adverse treatment including non-physical forms of harm. (Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 9/19/06)
CA3 Criticizes IJ for Jumping Eagerly on Each Slip of the Tongue
The court held that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and determination that, if credible, Petitioner’s testimony did not establish past persecution, were not supported by substantial evidence. (Gabuniya v. Gonzales, 9/19/06)
BIA Finds Traffic Jam Was “Exceptional Circumstance”
In an unpublished decision, the BIA overturned the IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen after entry of an in absentia removal order, finding that the well-documented, hours-long traffic jam that caused the alien to miss the hearing was an “exceptional circumstance”. Courtesy of David B. Pakula.
BIA Clarifies Asylum Eligibility for Spouses/Partners in Forced Sterilization/Abortion Cases
The BIA held that an alien whose spouse was forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization can establish past persecution if they were legally married at the time. Matter of S-L-L, 24 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2006)
CA9 En Banc Panel Discusses Date Admissibility is Determined for SAW Beneficiaries
The court held that admissibility for SAW beneficiaries is determined as of the date of admission for lawful temporary residence, and is not redetermined as of the date of adjustment to lawful permanent residence. (Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 9/15/06)
CA1 Finds Past Persecution Claim Waived
The court held that Petitioner’s past persecution claim was barred where he failed to set forth a developed argument, despite a heading in his brief titled, “The IJ erred in finding that respondent had not suffered past persecution.” (Silva v. Gonzalez, 9/15/06)
CA2 Says Stay of Voluntary Departure Must Be Explicitly Requested
The court refused to stay voluntary departure where Petitioners moved for a stay of removal before their voluntary departure period expired, but did not explicitly request a stay of voluntary departure. (Iouri v. Ashcroft, 9/13/06)
CA9 Holds BIA Cannot Change Voluntary Departure Period Granted by IJ in a Streamlined Order
The court held that 8 CFR §1003.1(e)(4), which permits a single Board member to affirm an IJ’s decision without opinion, requires the member to affirm all of the IJ’s decision, including the length of the voluntary departure period. (Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 9/13/06)
CA2 Holds INA §242(b)(2) Dictates Venue, Not Jurisdiction
The court held that it was not compelled to transfer the petition for review to the circuit where Petitioner’s immigration proceedings were held because INA §242(b)(2) is a venue provision, not a jurisdictional mandate. (Moreno-Bravo v. Gonzales, 9/12/06)
BIA Finds Delay By Overnight Courier Not An "Exceptional Circumstance"
The BIA held that it lacked authority to extend the 30-day time limit for filing an appeal and a one day delay by an overnight delivery service did not warrant consideration of an untimely appeal on certification. Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006)
BIA Finds 237(a)(1)(H) Waiver Applies to Innocent Misrepresentations
The BIA held that INA §237(a)(1)(H) authorizes a waiver of removability regardless of whether the misrepresentation at the time of admission was willful or innocent. Matter of Guang Li Fu, 23 I&N Dec. 985 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Says IJ Applied Wrong Legal Standard in Albanian Asylum Case
The court found that the IJ’s own words – “the respondent[s have] not met their burden of showing that they would be persecuted upon their return” – demonstrate that he imposed an improperly heightened burden. (Karaj v. Gonzales, 9/5/06)
CA5 Holds BIA Erred in Ordering Petitioner Removed
The court held that, under INA §240(a)(1)-(3), only an IJ can order removal in the first instance. Therefore, the BIA erred in ordering Petitioner removed without remanding the case to the IJ for further proceedings. (James v. Gonzales, 9/5/06)
CA1 Finds Changed Conditions for Politically Active Greek Albanian
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that conditions had changed in Albania, including the 2003 elections, and the fact that a Greek candidate won in Petitioner’s hometown. (Bollanos v. Gonzales, 8/31/06)
CA1 Upholds BIA Denial of Motion to Reopen Pakistani Asylum Claim
The court found that even if the BIA had accepted as true the newspaper articles submitted with Petitioner’s motion, it could reasonably accept the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner could find refuge elsewhere in Pakistan. (Abdullah v. Gonzales, 8/31/06)
BIA Updates Revised Practice Advisory Regarding First Briefing Extensions
BIA notice updates an earlier advisory on revised briefing deadlines for cases before the Board where the individual is detained. Now the BIA will follow a 21 day briefing schedule and generally allow one extension request. Notice updates 71 FR 40151 published 7/14/06. (71 FR 51856, 8/31/06)
BIA Holds Offense Must be Completely “Political” To Qualify for Waiver
The BIA held that “purely political offense” exception to inadmissibility only applied to CIMTs that are completely or totally “political” and respondent’s conviction for aiding and abetting the murder of two British corporals did not qualify. Matter of O'Cealleagh, 23 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 2006)
EOIR OPPM 06-02: Delegation of Signature Authority
EOIR issues Operating Policies and Procedure Memorandum (OPPM) 06-02: Delegation of Signature Authority, in which the acting Chief Immigration Judge delegates signature authority to certain EOIR personnel for various purposes. This OPPM cancels OPPM 04-02, dated April 23, 2004.
CA7 Holds Thai DEA Informant Denied Statutory Right to Present Asylum Evidence
CA7 held that Petitioner was denied her right to present evidence in support of her asylum request. The IJ’s refusal to consider Petitioner’s rebuttal to evidence that she committed a serious non-political crime in Thailand was unfair. (Pronsivakulchai v. Gonzales, 8/29/06)
CA11 Finds that IJ Can Reopen Proceedings After Removal
The court held that even though Petitioner had already been removed, the IJ retained jurisdiction to reopen in absentia proceedings to address whether Petitioner had received notice of the hearing. (Contreras-Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 8/29/06)
CA11 Holds IJ Abused Discretion in Denying Continuance Where Petitioner Has Pending I-140 and I-485
The court held that it was an abuse of discretion to deny Petitioner’s motion for continuance where Petitioner had an I-140 visa petition and concurrently filed I-485 adjustment of status application pending with DHS. (Merchant v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 8/25/06)
CA11 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial
CA11 held that the discretionary bar to judicial review at INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not apply because denials of motions to continue are not statutorily-proscribed discretionary acts ‘specified under [the relevant] subsection’ to the Attorney General.” (Zafar v. US Att’y Gen., 8/24/06)
CA1 Finds Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud Is an Aggravated Felony
The court applied the modified categorical approach and found “clear and convincing evidence” to establish that Petitioner’s bank fraud conviction was an aggravated felony. (Conteh v. Gonzales, 8/22/06)