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 Rules IJ Should Enter In Absentia Order of Removal if Individual Returned to Mexico Under MPP Fails to Appear for Hearing
BIA ruled that if DHS returns an individual to Mexico to await an immigration hearing under MPP and provides sufficient notice of that hearing, an IJ should enter an in absentia order of removal if individual fails to appear for hearing. Matter of J.J. Rodriguez, 27 I&N Dec. 762 (BIA 2020).
It’s Time for Immigration Court Reform
Join AILA to call for an independent immigration court system, outside the Department of Justice, under Article I of the Constitution.
The Truth About our Immigration Court System
AILA Second Vice President Jeremy McKinney describes why an independent immigration court is so desperately needed and shares resources related to his recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Immigration Subcommittee about this issue.
AILA Statement from House Hearing on Immigration Courts
AILA’s Jeremy McKinney’s statement before the House Judiciary Committee for the January 29, 2020, hearing on "Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.”
Practice Alert: EOIR Revised Form E-33, Attorneys Should Utilize New Form
In December 2019, EOIR revised Form E-33/IC and E-33/BIA for changing a respondent’s address before the immigration court and BIA. AILA recommends that attorney utilize the new form and have respondents sign the form themselves whenever possible.
CA3 Says Categorical Approach Limits Comparison of Prior State Conviction to “Most Similar” Federal Analog
The court granted the petition for review, holding that the categorical approach is limited to the most similar federal analog, and thus that the BIA erred in permitting the petitioner’s prior New Jersey convictions to be compared to multiple federal analogs. (Rosa v. Att’y Gen., 1/29/20)
CA9 Says Oregon Robbery Statute Is Not a Categorical Theft Offense or an Aggravated Felony
Granting the petition for review, the court concluded that the Oregon robbery statute was facially overbroad and indivisible, and thus that the statute did not qualify as a categorical theft offense nor as an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(G). (Lopez-Aguilar v. Barr, 1/28/20)
CA1 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Denial on Discretionary, Alternate Ground of Untimely Motion to Reopen
The court held that the jurisdictional bar in INA §242(a)(2)(C)-(D) divested it of jurisdiction to review the petitioner’s challenge to the BIA’s alternative, discretionary holding, because the petitioner had presented no questions of law or constitutional claims. (Daoud v. Barr, 1/28/20)
TRAC Issues Report on Use of Video in Immigration Court Hearings
During the first quarter of FY2020, TRAC reports, one out of six final immigration court hearings that concluded a case was held by video. Video hearings were more likely if the immigrant was detained. Video hearings in MPP tent courts appear not to be identified as video hearings in court records.
CA4 Upholds Denial of Asylum Based on BIA’s Determination That “Merchants in the Formal Honduran Economy” Is Not a Particular Social Group
The court held that the BIA’s ruling, which found that the petitioner’s proposed social group—merchants in the formal Honduran economy—did not constitute a particular social group, was not manifestly contrary to the law nor an abuse of discretion. (Canales-Rivera v. Barr, 1/27/20)
BIA Clarifies Scope of Test for Admissions of Criminal Activity
Unpublished BIA decision holds that the requirements in Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. 594 (BIA 1957), apply in determining validity of an admission of criminal activity for all immigration purposes, not just the grounds of inadmissibility. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of R-V-B-, 1/27/20)
AILA Policy Brief: Restoring Integrity and Independence to America’s Immigration Courts
The U.S. immigration court system suffers from profound structural problems that have severely eroded its capacity to deliver just decisions in a timely manner. This policy brief outlines how the courts have been pushed to their breaking point, and what it will take to fix them.
CBP, EOIR Host Open House at the Laredo Immigration Hearing Facility for NGOs
CBP and EOIR officials hosted an open house at the Laredo Immigration Hearing Facility (IHF) for individuals representing Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) on January 24, 2020. The open house featured a tour of the facility and an overview of the processes involved at the IHF.
CA9 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Guatemalan Citizen Who Reported Gang’s Criminal Activity to Police
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s decision that the record did not establish that Guatemalan society recognizes people who report the criminal activity of gangs to police as a distinct social group for purposes of withholding relief. (Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 1/24/20)
CA3 Holds Brazilian Woman Convicted of Assaulting Her Husband’s Mistress Is Eligible for VAWA Cancellation
The court held that the BIA erred when it found petitioner’s convictions for assaulting her husband’s mistress were not “connected to” the extreme cruelty she suffered, and that petitioner was eligible for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) cancellation. (Da Silva v. Att’y Gen., 1/24/20)
CA2 Finds BIA Failed to Consider Salvadoran Woman’s Claim of Persecution Based on Political Opinion
The court held that the BIA erred in failing to adequately consider the petitioner's claim that she would be persecuted on account of her political opinion—resistance to the norm of female subordination to male dominance that pervades El Salvador. (Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, 1/23/20)
CA9 Grants Rehearing En Banc in Case Involving Defective NTA Under Pereira
The court granted rehearing en banc to revisit its prior decision filed on May 22, 2019, which held that a Notice to Appear (NTA) that is defective under Pereira v. Sessions cannot be cured by a subsequent Notice of Hearing. (Lorenzo Lopez v. Barr, 1/23/20)
CA7 Says BIA’s Defiance of Court’s Remand Order in U Visa Case “Beggars Belief”
After finding that the BIA had “flatly refused” to implement the court’s decision on remand, the court vacated the decision of the BIA, leaving in force the IJ’s decision to grant petitioner a waiver of inadmissibility so that he could seek a U visa from DHS. (Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, 1/23/20)
BIA Reverses Finding That Respondent Missed Deadline to File Relief Applications
Unpublished BIA decision reverses finding that the respondent missed the deadline to file applications for relief because the deadline set by the IJ was one week after the order of removal. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Ramirez Guevara, 1/23/20)
Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Shular v. United States
On January 21, 2020, Shular v. United States went before the United States Supreme Court for oral argument. AILA members Sui Chung and Michael Vastine share their analysis of the argument.
BIA Rules That Prima Facie Eligibility for Collateral Relief Is Not Dispositive When Assessing Request for Continuance
BIA ruled that when assessing a request for continuance regarding an application for collateral relief, prima facie eligibility for relief and whether it will materially affect the outcome of proceedings are not dispositive. Matter of L-N-Y-, 27 I&N Dec. 755 (BIA 2020)
CA6 Upholds Finding That Petitioners Failed to Provide Material Evidence of Changed Country Conditions in Senegal
The court upheld the denial of petitioners’ motion to reopen their application for asylum, finding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it found that the petitioners had failed to provide material evidence of changed country conditions in Senegal. (Dieng, et al. v. Barr, 1/22/20)
TRAC Reports That Immigration Court Backlog Continues to Grow
TRAC reports that the immigration court backlog continues to grow, standing at 1,089,696 cases at the end of 12/19, up 65,929 compared to end of FY2019. Fastest growing segments of the backlog are Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans. Majority are from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico.
TRAC Reports EOIR Restores Some Records, Others Continue to Go Missing in Greater Numbers
TRAC reports that EOIR has restored close to a million applications for relief to its latest public data release. The number of disappearing records of other kinds from EOIR’s master database that were in previous monthly shipments, however, continues to grow.
AILA Submits Comments on Proposed Rule on Bars to Asylum Eligibility
AILA submitted comments in response to USCIS and EOIR’s joint notice of proposed rulemaking on bars to asylum eligibility. AILA raises concerns regarding the insufficient 30-day comment period and the suggestion that CAT and Withholding of Removal are adequate substitutes for asylum.