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
BIA Finds IJ Erred in Granting Cancellation as a Matter of Discretion Where Respondent’s Extensive Criminal History Outweighed His Equities
The BIA held that the IJ erred in granting cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion because the respondent’s extensive criminal history outweighed his equities and found that the record did not support a finding of rehabilitation. Matter of Mills, 29 I&N Dec. 668 (BIA 2026)
AILA Law Journal, Vol. 8, Number 1, April 2026
The April 2026 edition of the AILA Law Journal is now available.
Practice Alert: AILA Tracking Detentions at USCIS Biometrics Appointments
AILA is tracking increased reports of detentions at USCIS biometrics appointments.
BIA Holds That FBI Memorandum Indicating Respondent Is National Security Risk Warrants Significant Weight in Bond Proceedings
The BIA held that an FBI Letterhead Memorandum indicating that the respondent is a potential national security risk warrants significant weight in bond proceedings, and ordered the respondent detained without bond. Matter of Shentu, 29 I&N Dec. 595 (BIA 2026)
BIA Holds That IJ Erred in Terminating Proceedings Based Solely on DACA Receipt Without Considering Opposition to Termination
The BIA held that the IJ erred in terminating removal proceedings based solely on the fact that respondent had been accorded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and without considering reasons for any opposition to termination. Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026)
CA1 Holds That There Is No Categorical Bar to Political Opinion Claims Based on Opposition to Gangs
Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court held that the BIA erred in applying a categorical rule that opposition to gangs cannot constitute a political opinion and failed to adequately address the petitioner’s religion-based asylum claim. (Lopez Martinez v. Blanche, 4/23/26)
BIA Holds That Political Opinion Must Be Tied to Government and That Opposition to Gangs Is Insufficient
The BIA held that to establish a political opinion under the INA, a noncitizen must have an actual or imputed belief or conviction regarding a discrete cause tied to a government, and that opposition to criminal gangs is insufficient. Matter of D–G–E–A– & N–G–G–E–, 29 I&N Dec. 570 (BIA 2026)
BIA Holds That Lack of Candor Regarding Criminal History Is a Significant Adverse Factor in Exercise of Discretion on Cancellation of Removal
The BIA held that a noncitizen’s lack of candor regarding his criminal history is a significant adverse factor when exercising discretion on an application for cancellation of removal. Matter of Richards, 29 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2026)
CA4 Holds Matter of K– Does Not Apply Where Petitioner Admits Drug Offenses in Seeking Cancellation of Removal
The court held that Matter of K– does not apply where a petitioner, represented by counsel, admits to controlled substance offenses under oath in seeking cancellation of removal, and that such admissions preclude a finding of good moral character. (Sandoval Diaz v. Blanche, 4/20/26)
AILA and NIJC Argue Immigration Judges Must Develop the Record
AILA and the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) filed an amici brief outlining immigration judges’ affirmative duty to develop the record in removal proceedings and how this duty applies to pro se respondents and cases where counsel’s performance falls below minimum professional standards.
CA1 Reverses Denial of Adjustment to Venezuelan Petitioner Where BIA Engaged in Impermissible Factfinding
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding by relying on a factual determination not supported by the record in reversing the IJ’s grant of adjustment of status to the Venezuelan petitioner. (Taveras Martínez v. Blanche, 4/17/26)
CA4 Holds That North Carolina PJC with Community Service Constituted Conviction under INA §101(a)(48)(A)
The court held that the petitioner’s North Carolina Prayer for Judgment Continued (PJC) conditioned on community service constituted a conviction under INA §101(a)(48)(A) rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal based on two CIMT convictions. (Gardner v. Blanche, 4/14/26)
CA7 Finds That Petitioner Failed to Show Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship and That BIA Did Not Abuse Discretion in Denying Reopening
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1) and found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. (Petrov v. Blanche, 4/14/26)
BIA Holds IJs Must Conduct In Absentia Hearing Where Record Contains Evidence of Alienage Despite DHS Nonappearance
The BIA held that where respondent is charged as present without admission or parole, neither party appears, and the record contains evidence of alienage, the IJ errs in terminating proceedings instead of conducting an in absentia hearing. Matter of Bolivar-Bolivar, 29 I&N Dec. 548 (BIA 2026)
EOIR to Stop Hearings at San Francisco Immigration Court’s Montgomery Street Location
EOIR announced it will stop holding hearings at the San Francisco Immigration Court’s Montgomery Street location after 5/1/26. Some cases will be reassigned to the court’s Sansome Street location, and filings for such cases should be filed at the Sansome Street location beginning 5/4/26.
AILA Files Amicus Brief in CA9 Defending Right to Counsel in Reasonable Fear Proceedings
AILA argued that meaningful access to counsel is essential in reasonable fear proceedings. Despite requesting counsel, the detained petitioner was forced to proceed pro se at the RF interview and IJ review, undermining statutory and due process protections. (Amador-Canacas v. Bondi, 4/9/26)
BIA Holds That Secretary of State Letter Was Sufficient to Establish Removability for Adverse Foreign Policy Consequences
The BIA held that a Secretary of State letter was sufficient to establish removability under INA §237(a)(4)(C)(i), and that failure to disclose involvement with an organization on a Form I-485 was a material misrepresentation supporting removability. Matter of M–K–, 29 I&N Dec. 556 (BIA 2026)
AILA and Public Counsel Urge Right to Counsel in Reasonable Fear Interview
The petitioner was forced to proceed in reasonable fear interview and immigration judge review without counsel, despite asking to contact his attorney. AILA and Public Counsel stress the critical role of counsel and the high stakes for pro se detainees. (Amador Canacas v. Bondi, 4/9/26)
CA9 Finds Petitioner Forfeited Merits Arguments and Failed to Exhaust Due Process Claims
The court denied the petition for review, holding that the petitioner had forfeited all exhausted bases to challenge the agency’s decision denying his asylum application and failed to exhaust the procedural due process claims he raised before the court. (Santana-Gonzalez v. Bondi, 4/8/26)
AILA and the Council File Public Comment in Opposition to New BIA Interim Final Rule
AILA and the American Immigration Council urge DOJ/EOIR to withdraw the BIA Appellate Procedures IFR, arguing it unlawfully cuts appeal time to 10 days, makes summary dismissal the default without a complete record, burdens counsel, and shifts errors and caseloads to federal courts.
EOIR Announces 15 Immigration Judges and 17 Temporary Immigration Judges
EOIR announced the investiture of 15 immigration judges and 17 temporary immigration judges in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
CA6 Upholds Asylum Denial Where Petitioner Forfeited and Failed to Exhaust PSG Claims
The court held that the petitioner forfeited his arguments regarding the four particular social groups (PSGs) he identified before the agency and that he failed to exhaust the three new groups he presented for the first time in his petition for review. (Gamas-Vicente v. Blanche, 4/7/26)
BIA Affirms Revocation of Visa Petition Based on Substantial and Probative Evidence of Beneficiary's Prior Marriage Fraud
The BIA held that good and sufficient cause existed to revoke the prior approval of a visa petition because the record contained substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud between the beneficiary and her prior spouse. Matter of Nwagwu, 29 I&N Dec. 651 (BIA 2026)
BIA Finds Respondent’s Criminal History and Reluctance to Accept Responsibility Outweighed Favorable Factors for Cancellation of Removal
The BIA held that respondent’s criminal history, including charges not resulting in conviction, and his reluctance to accept responsibility for his criminal acts, outweighed the favorable factors relevant to discretion for cancellation of removal. Matter of Germain, 29 I&N Dec. 648 (BIA 2026)
CA7 Finds It Lacked Jurisdiction to Review Petition for Review Where No Final Order of Removal Existed
The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an email from a DHS field office declining to revisit a long-executed 2018 Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) was not a “final order of removal” reviewable under INA §242(a). (Velazquez-Olais v. Blanche, 4/6/26)