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
CA3 Grants Government’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Vacates Prior Opinion in Laureano v. Att’y Gen.
The court denied the petitioner’s petition for rehearing, granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc, and vacated its 5/29/26 opinion and judgment. (Laureano v. Att’y Gen., 9/2/26)
CA8 Says CAT Order Is Not a Final Order of Removal and 30-Day Petition for Review Deadline Is Not Subject to Equitable Tolling
The court held that a CAT order is not a final order of removal reviewable on its own under INA §242(a)(1) and that the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review is a mandatory claims-processing rule not subject to equitable tolling. (B.P. v. Blanche, 9/2/26)
CA8 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Standalone Negative Reasonable Fear Determination
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under INA §242(a)(1) to review an IJ’s affirmance of an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination because the decision is not a final order of removal and does not affect the validity of one. (Sebastian-Perez v. Blanche, 9/2/26)
CA1 Finds IJ Properly Applied Hardship Standard in Denying Cancellation to Petitioner Whose Son Had Asthma
The court held that the IJ properly applied the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard and considered the relevant evidence in denying cancellation of removal based on hardship to the petitioner’s children, including his son’s asthma. (Espinoza Benitez v. Blanche, 9/1/26)
CA7 Holds That Wisconsin Child Neglect Conviction Is Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse Under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i)
The court held that Wisconsin’s child neglect statute is categorically a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i), rendering the petitioner’s conviction under the statute a bar to cancellation of removal. (Reynoso-Salgado v. Blanche, 9/1/26)
CA3 Holds That Change in Law Is Not Basis for Statutory Reopening and Rejects Equitable Tolling for Reconsideration
The court held that a change in law is not a basis for statutory reopening, that the petitioner’s untimely motion for reconsideration did not warrant equitable tolling, and that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of sua sponte reopening. (Aristy-Rosa v. Att’y Gen., 9/1/26)
USCIS Interim Final Rule on Affirmative Asylum Referrals Without Interview
USCIS interim final rule allowing asylum officers to refer certain asylum applications to EOIR without conducting an asylum interview. The rule is effective 7/28/26. Comments are due 9/28/26. (91 FR 47101, 7/28/26; 91 FR 55735, 8/31/26)
CA2 Finds Conspiracy to Retaliate Against Witness Under 18 USC §1513(b) Is Categorically a CIMT
The court held that conspiracy to retaliate against a witness in violation of 18 USC §1513(b) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and that the INA’s moral turpitude ground of removability was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. (Dziedziach v. Blanche, 8/31/26)
CA9 Holds That Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule Conflicts with Asylum Statute and That Agency Erred on Mixed Motives Analysis
The court held that the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule conflicts with the asylum statute by restricting eligibility based on manner of entry, and that the agency also legally erred by failing to apply the complete mixed motives framework. (Garcia Morales v. Blanche, 8/31/26)
BIA Holds That DHS Properly Imposed Civil Penalty on Respondent Who Failed to Depart Under His Voluntary Departure Order
The BIA held that DHS properly imposed a civil monetary penalty after the respondent failed to depart the United States in compliance with his voluntary departure order, and that INA §240B(d)(1) does not require the failure to depart to be willful. Matter of R–P–L–, 29 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2026)
CA9 Holds That Agency Improperly Relied on Trivial Inconsistencies and Disregarded Translation Difficulties in Adverse Credibility Finding
The court held that the adverse credibility determination lacked substantial evidence because the agency improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies and disregarded significant translation difficulties, and that it also legally erred in denying CAT relief. (Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche, 8/28/26)
CA9 Holds That Notice Sent to Address DHS Told BIA Was Incorrect Was Not Reasonably Calculated to Reach Detained Noncitizen
The court held that where the BIA has been notified by DHS that a detained noncitizen’s location differs from the address used to mail a notice of appeal or briefing schedule and no additional reasonable steps are taken, such notice violates due process. (Jacques v. Blanche, 8/28/26)
CA9 Holds That BIA Erred by Requiring Quantitative Evidence of Torture and Failing to Give Reasoned Consideration to Expert Reports
The court held that the BIA erred by imposing a quantitative evidence requirement, where the regulations require it to consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, and by failing to give reasoned consideration to expert reports. (Parada Calderon v. Blanche, 8/28/26)
Immigration Consequences of Registering to Vote and Voting in U.S. Elections
With elections approaching in the fall, it is a good time to remind clients of immigration consequences of noncitizens registering to vote and voting in U.S. elections. Doing so in federal, state, and county elections in violation of the law carries numerous serious immigration consequences.
EOIR Announces Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge, Administrative Law Judge, 35 IJs, and 3 Temporary IJs
EOIR announced the swearing in of a regional deputy chief immigration judge within the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, an administrative law judge within the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, 35 immigration judges, and 3 temporary immigration judges.
BIA Holds That IJ Erred in Finding Exceptional Circumstances Warranting Sua Sponte Reopening and Rescission of In Absentia Removal Order
The BIA held the IJ erred in finding exceptional circumstances warranting sua sponte reopening and rescission of an in absentia removal order where the record did not support his claim an individual misled him into believing he need not appear. Matter of K–K–U–J–, 30 I&N Dec. 81 (BIA 2026)
Think Immigration: What Would Dolly Do? Carrying Her Compassion into Immigration Advocacy
Drawing on Dolly Parton’s legacy of compassion, dignity, and hope, AILA Board Member Brittany Faith reflects on how Dolly's recording of “Deportee” speaks to immigration advocacy today: honoring the names, stories, and humanity of those our members represent and defend.
BIA Holds That IJs Generally Lack Jurisdiction to Redetermine Custody Once a Removal Order Is Administratively Final
The BIA held that IJs generally lack jurisdiction to redetermine custody conditions once a noncitizen becomes subject to an administratively final removal order, and, on DHS’s appeal, vacated an IJ’s order releasing the respondent on a $1,500 bond. Matter of W–F–D–, 29 I&N Dec. 854 (BIA 2026)
CA1 Holds No Remand Needed Where IJ Applied First Circuit Law in the Alternative and BIA Adopted That Rationale
The court held that no remand was needed where the IJ applied First Circuit law in the alternative and the BIA adopted it, that the adjustment and asylum-timeliness rulings were unreviewable, and that the Jamaican petitioner’s proposed PSG was not cognizable. (Bromfield v. Blanche, 8/25/26)
CA3 Finds CAT-Only Petition Moot After Removal and Holds Reentry Bar Is Not a Collateral Consequence
The court held that a petition for review challenging only the denial of CAT deferral was moot upon petitioner’s removal to El Salvador, because the reentry bar is not a collateral consequence of CAT denial and ICE Directive No. 11061.1 did not apply. (Mejia-Henriquez v. Att’y Gen., 8/25/26)
CA1 Upholds BIA’s Rejection of Asylum Claim Based on Form Order Granting Relative Asylum Without Reasoning or Facts
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that a form order granting a relative asylum, without reasoning or facts, showed no prima facie eligibility for asylum, and found that the Brazilian petitioners showed neither past persecution nor a well-founded fear. (Pereira Alves v. Blanche, 8/24/26)
CA4 Holds That Vacated Conviction Does Not Establish Inadmissibility Under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)
The court held a noncitizen is not inadmissible under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i) based on a vacated conviction, declining to follow Matter of Pickering, and that the regulations governing the timing of voluntary departure are not arbitrary and capricious. (Yanez Piedra v. Blanche, 8/24/26)
EOIR Final Rule on Inflation Adjustments for FY2027 EOIR Fees
EOIR final rule implementing inflation adjustments to FY2027 EOIR fees as a result of the provisions in H.R. 1. Fee increases for forms and motions range between $20 and $50 and are effective for all filings submitted on or after 10/1/26. (91 FR 54211, 8/21/26).
CA11 Finds Florida Robbery by Sudden Snatching Is Categorically an Aggravated Felony Theft Offense Under INA §101(a)(43)(G)
The court held that a Florida conviction for robbery by sudden snatching is categorically an aggravated felony theft offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G), rendering the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(a). (Ramdial v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 8/21/26)
AILA Files Amicus Brief Addressing Fairness and Appellate Review in Removal Proceedings
AILA argued that procedural errors undermined the fairness of removal proceedings. The brief contends that limits on record development, improper BIA fact-finding, and legal errors prevented meaningful review. (Khalil v. Blanche, 8/21/26)