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
MOA Between USCIS and ICE on the Issuance of NTAs
Memorandum of Agreement between USCIS and ICE, setting forth when each party may issue an NTA following a USCIS adjudication. The MOA applies to cases adjudicated on or after 10/1/06 and was released to AILA on 8/26/10 in response to a FOIA request initiated in March 2009.
CA10 Refuses to Apply CA9 Law on Immigration Consequences of CA9 Conviction
Although Petitioner was convicted within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, the court refused to apply 9th Circuit law to determine whether his conviction stood for immigration purposes because his immigration proceedings took place in the 10th Circuit. (Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 6/14/06)
AILF/AILA Comment Opposes Regulations on Eligibility of "Arriving Aliens" to Adjust Status in Removal Proceedings
AILF and AILA submitted comments opposing interim rules promulgated by CIS and EOIR suggesting unnecessary and harmful limits on the exercise of discretion in adjustment cases filed by "arriving aliens" in removal cases.
CA4 Discusses Delivery Presumptions for Notices to Appear
The court held that for purposes of rescinding an in absentia removal order, where a notice to appear is sent by regular mail, the BIA abused its discretion by requiring Petitioner to rebut the “strong presumption” of delivery for certified mail. (Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 6/13/06)
CA5 Holds AG’s Heightened Standard of Review for §209(c) Waivers Is Not Ultra Vires
The court held that the AG’s imposition of a heightened standard of review to §209(c) waivers of inadmissibility that are sought by “violent criminals” was within the scope of his discretion as conferred by the INA and therefore, not ultra vires. (Jean v. Gonzales, 6/9/06)
CA1 Reverses IJ Denial of Motion to Rescind In Absentia Order
The court held that the denial of Petitioner’s motion to rescind and reopen proceedings was based on an error of law where the IJ failed to consider the “totality of the circumstances” when evaluating “exceptional circumstances.” (Kaweesa v. Gonzales, 6/9/06)
Snapshot of the Hagel/Martinez Compromise (S. 2611)
AILA’s summary of the 795-page “Hagel/Martinez compromise" (S. 2611) passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006.
BIA Denies Relief to Burmese Chin Based on Finding of Material Support
The BIA rejected a “totality of the circumstances” test for whether an organization is engaged in terrorist activity and refused to consider an alien’s intent in making a donation or the recipient’s intended use when deciding “material support”. Matter of S-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 936 (BIA 2006)
AG Remands Material Support Bar Case to BIA
The AG remands case in light of the 2/20/07 determination of the DHS Secretary that INA Sec. 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) shall not apply with respect to material support provided to the Chin National Front/Chin National Army. Matter of S-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 289 (AG 2007)
CA1 Finds No Well-Founded Fear in Cambodian Asylum Claim
The court held that Petitioners’ political involvement was low-level to nonexistent, and that they failed to establish that political beliefs would be imputed to them or that they were similarly situated to those who suffered abuses. (Sou v. Gonzales, 6/7/06)
BIA on Effective Date of CSPA
In an unpublished decision, the BIA remanded, finding that the respondent's adjustment application was pending before the Immigration Court after 8/6/02, the date of enactment of CSPA, and she qualifies as a "child" under CSPA formula. Courtesy of Juan Lorenzo Rodriguez Quesada.
CA8 Holds No Jurisdiction to Review IJ’s Findings on Country Conditions
The court held that Petitioner’s challenge of the IJ’s factual determination regarding country conditions in Afghanistan is not a reviewable “question of law” under INA §242(a)(2)(D). (Hanan v. Gonzales, 6/6/06)
CA7 Remands for Reconsideration of Evidence of Removability
CA7 remanded for the BIA to reconsider its decision finding Petitioner removable. The IJ erred in concluding that the Attorney General Guidelines for INS undercover operations, which were established prior to INS’s reorganization, did not apply to DHS. (Pieniazek v. Gonzales, 6/5/06)
CA2 Remands for Consideration of Imputed Political Opinion
The court held that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that because Petitioner was not directly harmed by the Ethiopian government he did not have a well-founded fear, and that the IJ and BIA failed to take into account imputed political opinion. (Maidal v. INS, 6/5/06)
CA2 Rejects Adverse Credibility Finding
In an unpublished decision, the court held that Petitioner’s testimony was not vague where he provided details about his duties with the police force and his involvement in the Democratic Party in Albania and was not asked for additional details. (Shurdho v. Gonzales, 6/1/06)
CA2 Says Adverse Credibility Rests on Unsupported Assumptions
The court found that part of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination rested on unsupported assumptions about how Burma’s military regime operates. (Htin v. BCIS, 6/1/06)
CA3 Remands for Review by Three-Member BIA Panel
The court found that the decision of a single BIA member to forego panel review is not “committed to agency discretion” and is therefore, subject to judicial review. (Purveegiin v. Gonzales, 6/1/06)
CA2 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review BIA "Brief Order"
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Petitioner's motion seeking review of a discretionary adjustment denial and challenging the BIA’s decision to affirm an appeal by a “brief order.” (Guyadin v. Gonzales, 5/30/06)
CA2 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review BIA Decision to AWO
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the determination of a single BIA panel member to affirm a decision of the immigration judge without opinion, rather than refer the case for review by a three-member panel. (Kambolli v. Gonzales, 5/26/06)
AILA Backrounder on U.S. Ports of Entry
AILA Backgrounder on the challenges facing DHS security at ports of entry, including US-Visit, NSEERs, expedited removal, management of U.S. ports of entry, and AILA's positions on the issues.
CA11 Discusses Meaning of “Lawfully Admitted” in the 212(c) Context
CA11 held that Petitioner was not eligible under INA §212(c) because he was not “lawfully admitted” for permanent residence when INS erroneously granted his adjustment of status application in spite of his conviction involving a controlled substance. (Savoury v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 5/25/06)
BIA Rules EWI Ineligible for Adjustment Under CSPA
The BIA held that an alien who entered without inspection is not eligible for adjustment under the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 and may not amend or renew an adjustment during proceedings under 245(i). Matter of Jian An Wang, 23 I&N Dec. 924 (BIA 2006)
AILA Pro Bono Newsletter, Spring 2006
This is the inaugural issue of the Pro Bono Newsletter. Topics include AILA Wants to Recognize Your Pro Bono Work; Promote Your Organization or Program; New York Chapter Hosts Event; Know Your Rights Materials; Pro Bono Feature—Tour of the Border; Volunteer Opportunities & BIA Appeals Project.
CA1 Finds Voluntary Departure Overstay Bars Adjustment Despite BIA Reopening
The court held that the bar to adjustment of status for overstaying a period of voluntary departure applies even if the BIA later reopens the case. (DaCosta v. Gonzales, 5/24/06)
CA2 Criticizes BIA for Dragging Feet on Chinese Asylum Cases
The court remanded the case for the BIA to determine whether Petitioner’s status as a boyfriend and father would allow him to qualify as a refugee based on China’s coercive population control policies. (Pan v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 5/23/06)