Featured Issue: Representing Clients Before ICE
This resource page combines resources for attorneys representing clients before ICE. For information about why AILA is calling for the reduction and phasing out of immigration detention, please see our Featured Issue Page: Immigration Detention and Alternatives to Detention.
Quick Links
- Seeking Stays of Removal
- AILA Practice Pointers and Alerts (continually updated)
- Practice Advisory: Representing Detained Clients in the Virtual Landscape
- Practice Pointer: How to Locate Clients Apprehended by ICE
- Practice Pointer: Preparing for an Order of Supervision Appointment with ICE-ERO
- AILA ICE Liaison Agenda and Meeting Minutes
Communicating with OPLA, ERO, and CROs
The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) includes 1300 attorneys who represent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in immigration removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). OPLA litigates all removal cases as well as provides legal counsel to ICE personnel. At present, there are 25 field locations throughout the United States.
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) manages all aspects of immigration enforcement from arrest, detention, and removal. ERO has 24 field office locations. ERO also manages an “alternative to detention” program that relies almost exclusively on the “Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP)” to monitor individuals in removal proceedings.
Since 2016, ICE has had an Office of Partnership and Engagement (formerly Office of Community Engagement) to be a link between the agency and stakeholders. As part of this office, Community Relations Officers (CROS) are assigned to every field office to work with local stakeholders such as attorneys and nonprofit organizations.
*Headquarters does not provide direct contact numbers or emails for individual employees.* (AILA Liaison Meeting with ICE on April 26, 2023)(AILA Doc. No. 23033004). However, attorneys can contact Chapter Local ICE Liaisons as they may have this information provided to them via local liaison engagement.
- DHS/ICE/OPLA Chief Counsel Contact Information [last updated in 2024, this list no longer appears on ICE.gov as of 1/27/25]
- Contact Information for Local OPLA Offices [last updated in 2024, this information no longer appears on ICE.gov as of 1/27/25]
- ERO Field Offices Contact Information*
- OPE Community Relations Officers
- ICE Check-In Scheduling Website
- ICE Online Change of Address Website
Latest on Enforcement Priorities & Prosecutorial Discretion
Executive Order 14159 (90 FR 8443, 1/29/25) directs DHS to set priorities that protect the public safety and national security interests of the American people, including by ensuring the successful enforcement of final orders of removal, enforcement of the INA and other Federal laws related to the illegal entry and unlawful presence of [noncitizens] in the United States and the enforcement of the purposes of this order. Given the January 25, 2025, confirmation of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, a memorandum detailing enforcement priorities may be issued in the coming weeks.
An unpublished ICE memo from acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello entitled “Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or near Courthouses” makes reference to targeted noncitizens and includes:
- National security or public safety threats;
- Those with criminal convictions;
- Gang members;
- Those who have been ordered removed from the United States but have failed to depart; and/or
- Those who have re-entered the country illegally after being removed.
Procedures and email inboxes created under the Biden Administration to request Prosecutorial Discretion no longer appear on the ICE website. AILA members are encouraged to review current DOJ regulations entitled “Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings” for alternative basis for seeking termination or administrative closure.
Access to Counsel
- ERO eFile:
- An online system developed to electronically file G-28s with ERO. Attorneys and accredited representatives may register for ERO eFile accounts and may also sponsor law students and law graduates who work under their supervision. See AILA’s practice alert (AILA Doc. No. 24051506) for more information.
- ICE Attorney Information and Resources Page
- AILA Practice Alert: Updates to the ICE Attorney Information and Resource Page
Filing Administrative Complaints on Behalf of Detained and Formerly Detained Clients
- Online Intake Form for the Detention Ombudsman (myOIDO)
- Available for complaints for issues in ICE and CBP Custody nationwide, including to submit complaints about access to counsel problems on behalf of currently or previously detained clients.
- Online Complaint Form for DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL)
- Oversight of Immigration Detention: An Overview - May 16, 2022
(provides a list of agencies with which attorneys may file administrative complaints of detention center violations) - Immigration Judge Complaint Toolkit – August 31, 2022
- Practice Alert: Template for CRCL Complaint Regarding Failures to Provide Language Access – July 16, 2021
Selected ICE Policies and Current Status
For comprehensive comparison of current and prior ICE policies, please review the “Immigration Policy Tracker (IPTP).” The IPTP is a project of Professor Lucas Guttentag working with teams of Stanford and Yale law students and leading national immigration experts.
| Pre Jan 20, 2025 Status | Current Status |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Browse the Featured Issue: Representing Clients Before ICE collection
CA9 Finds Crime of Child Abuse under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) Covers Criminally Negligent Child Endangerment by Parents and Nonparents Alike
The court held that the best reading of the INA crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment covers child endangerment, requires at least criminal negligence, and reaches nonparents, and denied the consolidated petitions for review. (Leon-Briviesca v. Blanche, 6/25/26)
EOIR Releases Updated Fact Sheet on Observing Court Hearings
EOIR released an updated fact sheet on observing court hearings. Notably, this version permits people to observe web-only hearings over Webex. It explicitly states that observers will not be permitted to attend via Webex if the judge, respondent, or counsel is appearing in a physical courtroom.
BIA Upholds No-Bond Flight Risk Determination and Finds USCIS Adjustment Denial Admissible as Probative of Flight Risk
The BIA held that the IJ properly determined that the respondent posed a flight risk that could not be mitigated by a bond, and concluded that evidence USCIS denied his adjustment application was properly admitted as probative of flight risk. Matter of A–W–M–K–, 29 I&N Dec. 805 (BIA 2026)
CA9 Holds That Motion Premised on Evidence Not Before BIA Must Be Treated as Motion to Reopen, Making It Timely under 90-Day Deadline
The court held that a motion captioned as a motion to reopen and premised on evidence not before the BIA when it dismissed an untimely appeal must be treated as such, making it timely, and remanded for the BIA to apply the motion-to-reopen standard. (Garcia Corrales v. Blanche, 6/24/26)
Call for Plaintiffs: Clients Arrested During Kavanaugh Stops
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and ACLU are asking for help identifying potential plaintiffs for a lawsuit challenging ICE/CBP’s use of facial recognition during roving immigration stops (i.e., Kavanaugh stops). Plaintiffs should come from the 1st, 4th, or 9th Circuits.
Federal Judge Bars ICE from Conducting Most Courthouse Arrests and Exceeding 12-Hour Holding Cell Limit
A federal judge vacated ICE Directive 11072.3 and EOIR PM 25-06, which permitted civil arrests in courthouses, and ICE’s 6/24/25 “Nationwide Hold Room Waiver” memo, which allowed ICE to hold people in holding facilities for up to 72 hours. (Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, 6/23/26)
Practice Pointer: Habeas Corpus for People Originally Detained Near the Border Then Released
AILA’s Benefits Litigation Committee provides this practice pointer on Habeas Corpus for individuals detained near the border, then released, including on recognizance or parole under INA § 212(d)(5), and due process violations in ROR revocations and revocation of parole under § 212(d)(5).
BIA Finds Potential Eligibility for Collateral Relief Was Not a Basis to Deny DHS’s Motion to Pretermit Asylum
The BIA held that the IJ erred in denying DHS’s motion to pretermit the respondents’ asylum applications based on their potential eligibility for collateral relief, finding that was not a proper factor in ruling on such a motion. Matter of T–A–G–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 2026)
A Better Way on Immigration: Principles for America’s Future
Informed by the experience of the more than 18,000 immigration attorneys who are members of AILA, this document outlines five core principles to restore trust, strengthen the rule of law, and build a system that is fairer, more secure, and better aligned with the country America aspires to be.
CA11 Holds Court Lacks Jurisdiction over Petition for Review of CAT Denial Unless It Also Challenges a Final Removal Order
The court held that judicial review of a Convention Against Torture (CAT) denial is available only when the petition also challenges a final removal order, and dismissed the petition for review aimed solely at the BIA’s CAT decision for lack of jurisdiction. (Hayles v. Att’y Gen., 6/22/26)
BIA Holds That Grant of Withholding Is an Important Consideration in Discretionary Denial of Asylum
The BIA held that a grant of withholding of removal under the INA is an important consideration in whether asylum may be denied as a matter of discretion, given the mitigating impact withholding has on the risk of future persecution. Matter of P–A–C–, 29 I&N Dec. 708 (BIA 2026)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Reconsideration Where Petitioner Failed to Show She Was Ever Unable to Leave Her Abuser
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration where the petitioner failed to establish membership in her proposed PSG of Brazilian women unable to leave relationships and her perceived-family PSG lacked particularity. (Alves-Pains v. Blanche, 6/18/26)
BIA Vacates CAT Deferral Where IJ Relied on Generalized Country Conditions and Overlooked Applicant’s Individualized Circumstances
The BIA held that the IJ clearly erred in finding likely torture based on generalized country conditions evidence while overlooking the applicant's individualized circumstances, and that he did not show likely acquiescence by a public official. Matter of H–L–S–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2026)
BIA Vacates CAT Deferral Where IJ Relied on Generalized Country Conditions and Overlooked Applicant’s Individualized Circumstances
The BIA held that the IJ clearly erred in finding likely torture based on generalized country conditions evidence while overlooking the applicant's individualized circumstances, and that he did not show likely acquiescence by a public official. Matter of H–L–S–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2026)
BIA Remands Where IJ Did Not Meaningfully Address Credibility Inconsistencies and Internal Relocation Evidence
The BIA held remand was warranted because the IJ’s credibility finding did not meaningfully address apparent inconsistencies and, assuming the respondent established past persecution, failed to consider years of internal relocation without harm. Matter of H–I–A–H–, 29 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 2026)
BIA Says Evidentiary Hearing Generally Unnecessary to Apply Safe Third Country Bar Absent Individualized Risk in ACA Country
The BIA held that where a noncitizen subject to an asylum cooperative agreement (ACA) shows no individualized risk of harm in the country of removal, an evidentiary hearing is generally unnecessary to apply the safe third country bar. Matter of A–C–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 703 (BIA 2026)
CA6 Holds That BIA’s 30-Day Appeal Deadline Is Not Jurisdictional and Upholds Denial of Equitable Tolling
The court held that the BIA’s 30-day appeal deadline is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule subject to equitable tolling, and upheld the denial of equitable tolling where the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence. (Baro v. Blanche, 6/16/26)
Call for Examples: Government Obstruction of Access to Clients
AILA is conducting a survey for an advocacy-oriented report about the experience of immigration attorneys having access to their clients obstructed by immigration agencies and related entities, either through individual officer decisions or the impact of broader national or regional policies.
BIA Holds That a Noncitizen Should Request a Stay from DHS Before Seeking One from the Board on a Pending Motion to Reopen or Reconsider
The BIA held that a noncitizen subject to a final removal order should first request a stay from DHS prior to the Board considering a stay request filed in connection with a motion to reopen or reconsider a Board or immigration court order. Matter of Herrera-Nunez, 29 I&N Dec. 691 (BIA 2026)
BIA Denies Reopening Where Respondent’s Equities Were Acquired Years After He Was Ordered Removed
The BIA held that the respondent did not establish an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening of removal proceedings where his equities were acquired years after he was ordered removed from the United States. Matter of Herrera-Nunez, 29 I&N Dec. 695 (BIA 2026)
BIA Holds That DHS Properly Authenticated Forms I-213 and I-94 with Form G-24 Signed by District Records Manager
The BIA held that DHS properly authenticated the Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, and Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record. by attaching to each a Form G-24, Certification of Documents, signed by the District Records Manager. Matter of Momplaisir, 29 I&N Dec. 820 (BIA 2026)
EOIR Interim Final Rule on EOIR Fees
EOIR interim final rule and request for comments to update its fee regulations for filings to comply with H.R. 1, effective 6/11/26. Comments are due 7/13/26. (91 FR 35369, 6/11/26)
CA9 Vacates Its Prior Order Denying a Stay of Removal and Grants Petitioners’ Opposed Motion to Stay in Rojas-Espinoza v. Blanche
The en banc court vacated its prior order denying the petitioners’ opposed motion to stay removal and granted the stay, finding that the petitioners met the standard for a stay under Nken v. Holder in light of en banc briefing and oral argument. (Rojas-Espinoza v. Blanche, 6/9/26)
CA11 Finds Petitioner’s Conviction in Florida for Aggravated Assault with Deadly Weapon Was Categorically a Crime of Violence
The court held that the petitioner’s Florida conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was categorically a crime of violence under 18 USC §16, and thus found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen. (Senatus v. Att’y Gen., 6/8/26)
CA6 Holds That It Lacked Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Discretionary Denial of Cancellation and Upholds Denial of Reconsideration
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration where the petitioner waived his challenge to removability by failing to appeal it. (Dodaj v. Blanche, 6/8/26)