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 Holds Texas Theft Not a CIMT Prior to Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga
Unpublished BIA decision holds that Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga, 26 I&N Dec. 847 (BIA 2016), does not apply retroactively to convictions for theft under Texas Penal Code 31.03. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Ozougwu, 4/9/20)
CA3 Holds “Remand Futility” Exception Applies in Immigration Proceedings
The court held that when remand would be futile—meaning the BIA on remand would be unable as a matter of law to grant the relief sought—the court can deny a petition for review without regard to the various issues that might otherwise be in play in the case. (Ricketts v. Att’y Gen., 4/8/20)
CA5 Declines to Remand Based on Alleged Due Process Violation Where BIA Upheld IJ’s Denial of CAT Relief
The court held that even if a due process violation had occurred, petitioners failed to show that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the IJ had developed the record further as to their Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim. (Arteaga-Ramirez, et al. v. Barr, 4/8/20)
Temporary Restraining Order Requested to Stop Dangerous EOIR and ICE Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic
AILA and our partners moved for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against EOIR and ICE to protect the health of immigration attorneys, immigrants, and the public from the impact of dangerous and unconstitutional policies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Department of the Treasury Notice on Immigration Bond Interest Rates
Department of the Treasury notice that for the period beginning 4/1/20 and ending 6/30/20, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 1.11 per centum per annum. (85 FR 19798, 4/8/20)
DOJ’s Immigration Court Practice Manual (Updated on 4/7/20)
The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge updated its Immigration Court Practice Manual, a comprehensive guide on uniform procedures, recommendations, and requirements for practice before Immigration Courts.
BIA Provides Guidelines on Filing by Email
The BIA released guidelines on filing by email for all BIA filers and the email addresses to submit the briefs. Through email, the BIA will only accept Briefs, Motions to Accept Late Filed Brief, Motions for Summary Affirmance, and, if new to the case, courtesy copies of the Form EOIR-27.
CA9 Affirms Injunction in California Requiring Bond Hearings for Immigrants with Removal Orders Detained for Six Months or More
The court affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California‘s injunction requiring the government to provide immigrants with removal orders detained pursuant to INA §241(a)(6) for at least six months with a bond hearing before an IJ. (Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr, 4/7/20)
CA9 Affirms Judgment in Washington Requiring Bond Hearings for Immigrants with Removal Orders Detained for At Least Six Months
The court affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington’s judgment requiring the government to provide immigrants with removal orders detained pursuant to INA §241(a)(6) for at least six months with a bond hearing before an IJ. (Flores Tejada v. Godfrey, 4/7/20)
CA4 Says INA §205 Confers Discretion Upon DHS Secretary to Revoke Visa Petitions
Affirming the district court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint, the court held that the language in INA §205 confers sufficient discretion to preclude judicial review of a visa petition revocation under INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdictional bar. (Polfliet v. Cuccinelli, et al., 4/7/20)
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Petitioner Who Alleged She Would Be Abused in Mexico
The court held that petitioner had failed to meet her burden of showing a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to Mexico, because she did not establish that the Mexican government was or would be unable or unwilling to control her alleged persecutors. (Galloso v. Barr, 4/7/20)
CA5 Says IJs Not Required to Provide Automatic Continuance for Asylum Applicants to Obtain Specific Corroborating Evidence
The court upheld the adverse credibility determination, rejecting the claim that IJs must provide advance notice of specific corroborating evidence needed to meet an asylum applicant’s burden of proof and an automatic continuance for the applicant to obtain it. (Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 4/3/20)
CA8 Finds BIA Did Not Engage in Improper Fact-Finding in Conducting Waiver of Inadmissibility Analysis as to Somali Petitioner
The court held that, in reversing the IJ’s decision to grant waiver of inadmissibility, BIA did not supplant the IJ’s hardship finding with one of its own, but instead accepted the hardship finding and reviewed the discretionary decision to grant the waiver de novo. (Kassim v. Barr, 4/3/20)
TRAC Finds Just One in Ten ICE Detainees Have a Serious Criminal Conviction on Record
TRAC examined criminal convictions among ICE detainees to understand ICE’s potential use of discretion during the COVID-19 pandemic. TRAC found that just one out of ten ICE detainees have a serious criminal conviction, and more than six out of ten ICE detainees have never been convicted of a crime.
EOIR Updates Policies on Filings and Signatures
EOIR released a policy memo noting that as of 3/31/20, EOIR has begun accepting digital and electronic signatures on all documents filed with immigration courts and the BIA. EOIR will also accept electronically-reproduced copies of documents containing digital, electronic, or “wet” signatures.
CA9 Says Applicant Not Responsible for Failing to Maintain Lawful Status Where That Failure Occurred Due to Lawyer’s Mistake
The court held that the petitioner remained eligible for adjustment of status because her failure to maintain lawful status resulted from her reasonable reliance on the assistance of her counsel, and found 8 CFR §1245.1(d)(2) to be invalid to a certain extent. (Peters v. Barr, 4/2/20)
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadorian Woman Who Claimed She Was Unable to Leave Domestic Relationship
The court held that the BIA’s adverse credibility findings were supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving the Salvadorian petitioner, where she had failed to explain inconsistent and contradictory facts in her testimony about her relationship. (Garcia v. Barr, 4/1/20)
EOIR Interim Rule Expanding the Size of the BIA to 23
EOIR interim rule adding two additional Board member positions to the BIA, thereby expanding its size to 23. The rule is effective 4/1/20. Comments must be submitted by 5/1/20. (85 FR 18105, 4/1/20)
BIA Rescinds In Absentia Order Where Hearing Notice Omitted Word “Street”
Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order where the respondent’s attorney was not present when next hearing date was announced and the address listed on the hearing notice omitted the word “street.” Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Sayevych, 4/1/20)
EOIR Releases FY2020 Statistics on All Pending I-862 Proceedings and Pending I-862 Proceedings Originating with a Credible Fear Claim
EOIR released statistics noting that there were 1,116,415 total pending I-862 proceedings, of which 215,003 originated with a credible fear claim. The statistics are for pending I-862 proceedings as of March 31, 2020. I-862 proceedings include removal, exclusion, and deportation hearings.
BIA Rules on Cancellation of Removal Claim Based on the Health of a Qualifying Relative
The BIA ruled that cancellation of removal claims based on the health of a qualifying relative must establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and that adequate medical care is not reasonably available in the country of removal. Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020)
AILA Quicktake #285: AILA and Partners Sue EOIR and ICE Over Dangerous COVID-19 Policies
AILA’s Director of Federal Litigation Jesse Bless explains why AILA joined other immigration lawyer groups and individuals to file a lawsuit against EOIR and ICE to demand better policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Practice Advisory: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr - Implications for Judicial Review
The American Immigration Council provides a practice advisory to help immigration attorneys who file petitions for review to challenge removal orders in the circuit courts after the Supreme Court’s decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr.
EOIR Released FY2020 Statistics on UAC Cases Pending More than Three Years
EOIR released FY2020 statistics on current unaccompanied children (UAC) cases that have been pending for more than three years. As of the end of the second quarter of FY2020 (through March 31, 2020), 38,871 cases were pending.
CA2 Says INA §242(a)(2)(C)’s Jurisdictional Provision Does Not Apply Where Removal Order Is Based Solely on Unlawful Presence
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(C)’s jurisdictional provision applies only to cases in which the IJ has found a petitioner removable based on covered criminal activity, and does not apply where petitioner’s order of removal is based solely on unlawful presence. (Manning v. Barr, 3/31/20)