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
CA3 Finds CAT Eligibility Is Established If the Cumulative Probability of Torture Exceeds 50%
The court found that the proper application of the CAT regulations merely requires the petitioner to prove it is more likely than not he faces torture and that the cumulative probability of torture exceeds 50%. (Kamara v. Gonzales, 8/29/05)
CA9 Withdraws Somalian Class Action Decision; Orders Remand
CA9 withdrew its prior decision in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jama v. ICE, but remanded with instructions “to vacate the injunction and to reconsider the class certification in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla.” (Ali v. Gonzales, 8/26/05)
District Court Decision That USCIS Must Provide Proof of Status to Persons Granted LPR in Proceedings
District Court decision in a national class action in which the California court granted summary judgment, ruling against DHS' failure to provide timely evidence of permanent residence status following grant of status in removal proceedings. (Santillan v. Gonzalez, 8/24/05)
CA8 Holds Colombian Asylum Applicants Failed to Show They Would Be Harmed Because of Their Political Opinion or Family Membership
The Court found that the Petitioners failed to discuss their political opinion and how it differed from the FARC, and failed to prove that there was a threat against their family. (Bernal-Rendon v. Gonzales, 8/23/05)
CA4 Finds Credit Card Fraud Offense Not an Aggravated Felony Theft
CA4 found the BIA’s conclusion that fraud offenses were subsumed in the definition of theft offenses ignored the distinction between the two and, thus, was “contrary to the intention of Congress, as evidenced by its separate and different treatment of fraud.” (Soliman v. Gonzales, 8/22/05)
CA8 Finds Changed Conditions in Sierra Leone and Upholds BIA’s Asylum Denial
CA8 found that Petitioner failed to establish past persecution or fear of future persecution in Sierra Leone, upholding the finding of changed conditions based on a 2002 State Department Country Report that noted the end of the civil war and improving conditions.(Jalloh v. Gonzales, 8/18/05)
CA11 Finds Marriage and Pregnancy Do Not Constitute Changed Circumstances for MTR in Chinese Asylum Case
CA11 held the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen that was filed one day late. It also found that Petitioner’s marriage and his wife’s pregnancy did not occur in China, and thus did not qualify as a changed circumstance. (Zou v. Gonzales, 8/18/05)
CA1 Remands Albanian Asylum Claim for BIA Clarification
The court remanded to the BIA to clarify why it found that Petitioner had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear, where he testified that he was arrested, imprisoned, deprived of food, beaten, and threatened with death. (Halo v. Gonzales, 8/17/05)
En Banc CA8 Applies Prudential Mootness Doctrine to Detention Habeas
Petitioner’s release and unknown whereabouts rendered his case prudentially moot due to uncertainties, “including whether and where [he] might be apprehended, the changing country conditions in Somalia, and our inability to provide an effective remedy ...” (Ali v. Cangemi, 8/16/05)
CA2 Says Asylum Process Is Not a Search for Reasons to Deport
The court held that the IJ disregarded relevant evidence and applied the wrong legal standards when reviewing the evidence presented by a part-Jewish family from Belarus. (Poradisova v. Gonzales, 8/16/05)
CA6 Finds Young, Attractive Albanian Women Do Not Constitute a Particular Social Group
Petitioner argued that as a young, attractive woman in Albania she risked being kidnapped and forced into prostitution. The Court found that the group was too generalized for asylum purposes and that it was ill-defined. (Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 8/15/05)
CA8 Discusses Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial
While acknowledging it could review some legal and constitutional claims related to the IJ’s denial of a continuance pursuant to new INA §242(a)(2)(D), CA8 held that petitioner’s claim was purely discretionary and, thus, it lacked jurisdiction to review the claim.(Grass v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
CA1 Upholds Adverse Credibility Finding in Chinese Asylum Case
The court sidestepped the issue of whether Petitioner was eligible for asylum based on his girlfriend’s forced abortion, and denied the petition, finding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. (Chen v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
CA3 Defines “Last Habitually Resided” in Refugee Definition
The court found that the IJ’s interpretation of “last habitually resided” based on the INA’s definition of “residence,” was permissible and agreed with IJ’s reliance on the length of time Petitioner stayed in Serbia, saying “habitual” means “long use.” (Paripovic v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
CA9 Finds that Mexican Homosexual with AIDS Is Eligible for Asylum
In finding eligibility for asylum, the Court held that Petitioner, a homosexual from Mexico who was forced by a police officer to perform sex acts, was subjected to past persecution. (Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
Notes from NGO Meeting with CBP (8/11/05)
Discussions in a meeting between non-governmental organizations and officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection included such topics as erroneous I-94s, CBP officer training, NSEERS, and expedited removal.
CA9 Finds that IJ Must Not Ignore Inconsistencies Simply Because They Weaken an Asylum Claim
The Court found that its cases do not mandate that an IJ ignore repeated and blatant inconsistencies that weaken a claim for asylum. (Kaur v. Gonzales, 8/11/05)
CA9 Construes Pending Habeas Appeal as Timely Filed Petition for Review
CA9 construes pending habeas appeal as a timely filed petition for review, finding this in line with Congressional intent in passing the REAL ID Act. Court declines comment on cases where the pending habeas petition requires further factual development. (Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 8/11/05)
Side-by-Side Comparison of the McCain/Kennedy & Cornyn/Kyl Immigration Reform Proposals
AILA’s side-by-side comparison of the McCain/Kennedy (S. 1033) and Cornyn/Kyl (S. 1438) comprehensive immigration reform proposals.
CA8 Defines Relevant Period of GMC for Special Rule Cancellation of Removal
The court held that, according to the plain meaning of 8 CFR §240.66(b) and NACARA §203, a petitioner must show good moral character during the 7-year period immediately preceding the date of petitioner’s application for "special rule cancellation of removal.” (Cuadra v. Gonzalez, 8/10/05)
CA9 Cordes v Gonzalez Vacated (Updated 4/3/08)
On 2/25/08, CA9 vacated the panel opinion from 2005, stating that the BIA sua sponte reopened the proceedings, vacated the revmoval order and remanded to the immigration judge. As a result of the remand, the court stated that it lost jurisdiction of the case. (Cordes v. Gonzalez, 8/10/05)
BIA Says 2-Week Absence Followed by EWI Does Not Break Physical Presence
Distinguishing from Matter of Romalez, the BIA held that a 2-week absence does not break continuous physical presence where the respondent was refused admission without threat of exclusion proceedings and reentered without inspection. (Matter of Avilez, 8/10/05)
CA8 Addresses New INA §242(a)(2)(D); Finds State Felony Simple Possession Conviction is an AgFel
The court ruled that even if the state offense would not qualify as an aggravated felony under federal law, “the plain language of the INA... states that any drug conviction that would qualify as a felony under either state or federal law is an aggravated felony.” (Lopez v. Gonzales, 8/9/05)
CA7 Says No Jurisdiction to Review Discretionary Challenge to One Year Asylum Filing Deadline
The court found that qualifying for the changed or extraordinary circumstances exception to the one year asylum deadline is a discretionary determination, and thus not reviewable, because it must be demonstrated “to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.” (Vasile v. Gonzales, 8/9/05)
CA5 Finds Chinese Christian Failed to Show He Was Persecuted for His Religious Beliefs
The Court stated that it was unable to conclude that Petitioner was persecuted on account of his religion. The Court upheld BIA’s determination that Petitioner feared not persecution, but prosecution for failing to register his church as required by Chinese law . (Li v. Gonzales, 8/9/05)