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
CA8 Finds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Finding Was Not Supported by Cogent Reasons
The court granted the petition for review and remanded for a new credibility determination, holding that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding with regard to the Chinese Christian petitioner was not supported by cogent reasons for disbelief. (Tian v. Barr, 7/30/19)
Immigration Court Finds Respondent’s Conviction for Malicious Destruction of Property Is Not a “Crime of Violence”
Unpublished BIA decision holds that respondent’s conviction for malicious destruction of property under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law §6-301 is not a “crime of violence,” denied DHS’s motion to pretermit, and granted the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal. Courtesy of Eric Singer.
Sign-On Letter to DHS, USCIS, and DOD Requesting the Continuation of Military Parole in Place
On 7/30/19, 27 organizations joined AILA to send a letter to Acting DHS Secretary McAleenan, Acting USCIS Director Cuccinelli, and DOD Secretary Esper requesting that the administration continue parole in place (PIP) for military families.
District Court Orders ICE to Explain Why It Failed to Give Detained Immigrants Proper Notice of Their Custody Reviews
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order requiring ICE to explain why the court should not find that the agency has unlawfully detained the 13 individuals identified in a recent detention report. (Calderon Jimenez et al. v. McAleenan, et al., 7/29/19)
Attorney General Overrules Portion of Matter of L-E-A- Relating to Particular Social Group
The Attorney General found that the BIA improperly recognized the respondent’s father’s immediate family as a particular social group. Decision notes that all cases inconsistent with this opinion are abrogated. Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019)
AILA: AG’s Decision Ignores Precedent and Is the Latest Attempt to Restrict Asylum
AG Barr issued a decision in Matter of L-E-A- impacting how family membership could be considered in asylum proceedings. AILA Second VP Jeremy McKinney noted: “Courts, like the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, have voluminous case law directly contradicting the Attorney General’s decision.”
Reuters Obtains Guidance Given to IJs on Docketing of Family Unit Cases
Reuters obtained guidance given to immigration judges (IJs) on docketing of family unit cases that directs them to schedule the initial hearing in family unit cases within 30 days.
Forty-Two House Democrats Demand that DOJ Rescind New Plan to Eliminate In-Court Interpreters
On 7/26/19, 42 House Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General Barr demanding that DOJ immediately rescind its plan to end the use of in-court interpreters for noncitizens appearing at their initial immigration court hearing.
BIA Finds IJs Have Authority to Deny TPS Applications in the Exercise of Discretion
The BIA dismissed the appeal, finding that immigration judges (IJs) have the authority to deny applications for temporary protected status (TPS) in the exercise of discretion. Matter of D-A-C- 27 I&N Dec. 575 (BIA 2019)
CA8 Finds Petitioner’s Conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in Minnesota Was a Particularly Serious Crime
The court found that the IJ and BIA did not err in concluding that the petitioner’s conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm in Minnesota was a particularly serious crime and that the petitioner was thus ineligible for withholding of removal. (Marambo v. Barr, 7/26/19)
CA3 Defers to BIA’s Finding That Stop-Time Rule Does Not Truncate Good Moral Character Window
The court deferred to the BIA’s interpretation that the stop-time rule does not apply to the time period during which a noncitizen must exhibit good moral character, and upheld the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal to the petitioner. (Mejia-Castanon v. Att’y Gen., 7/25/19)
CRCL Issues Recommendations to CBP and ICE Concerning Family Separation
CRCL conducted investigations reviewing allegations that CBP and ICE violated the civil rights or civil liberties of family members who were separated after crossing the U.S. border. CRCL recommendations are broad and address implementation of policies, procedures, and documentation.
CA9 Says INA §275(a)(2) Does Not Apply to Noncitizen Who Crosses into United States at Non-Designated Time or Place
The court held that, in order to convict a defendant under INA §275(a)(2), the government must prove that the noncitizen’s criminal conduct occurred at a port of entry that is open for inspection. (United States v. Corrales-Vazquez, 7/24/19)
ICE Releases Memo on Implementation of July 2019 Designation of Individuals Subject to Expedited Removal
ICE released guidance about the implementation of the expansion of expedited removal, indicating that it may begin applying expanded expedited removal on 9/1/19. It was filed by government counsel as part of the Make the Road NY v. McAleenan lawsuit challenging this expansion.
CA5 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Provided a Guatemalan Address for Notice Purposes
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen her in absentia removal order, finding that it was not sufficient for the petitioner to provide a Guatemalan address to the immigration court pursuant to INA §239(a)(1)(F)(i). (Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 7/23/19)
CA1 Upholds BIA’s Refusal to Reopen Removal Proceedings of Lesbian Ugandan Petitioner
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the lesbian Ugandan petitioner’s motion to reopen, finding that the motion demonstrated a persistence of negative conditions for members of the LGBT community in Uganda, rather than a material change in those conditions. (Nantume v. Barr, 7/23/19)
CA9 Says Violation of a Restraining Order in Oregon Qualifies as a Conviction Rendering Petitioner Ineligible for Cancellation of Removal
The court concluded that the contempt of court judgment entered against the petitioner in Oregon for violating a restraining order qualified as a conviction rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. (Diaz-Quirazco v. Barr, 7/23/19)
CA8 Upholds Finding That Petitioner Who Supported the MFDC Group in Senegal Was Ineligible for Adjustment of Status
The court held that the Sengalese petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proving that MFDC was not a terrorist organization, or alternatively, that he should not reasonably have known that the MFDC was a terrorist organization when he supported it. (N’Diaye v. Barr, 7/23/19)
EOIR 30-Day Extension of Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form EOIR-26
EOIR 30-day extension of a request for comments previously announced at 84 FR 19960 on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge. Comments are now due 8/22/19. (84 FR 35422, 7/23/19)
DHS Notice Expanding the Categories of Persons Eligible for Expedited Removal
DHS notice expanding the categories of persons designated eligible for expedited removal. The notice, including the new designation, is effective on 7/23/19. Comments may be submitted on or before 9/23/19. (84 FR 35409, 7/23/19)
CA5 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Provided a Guatemalan Address for Notice Purposes (Withdrawn)
The court upheld BIA’s denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen her in absentia removal order, finding that it was not sufficient for the petitioner to provide a Guatemalan address to the immigration court pursuant to INA §239(a)(1)(F)(i). (Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 5/15/19, withdrawn 7/23/19)
AILA: DHS Attempts Massive Expansion of Unilateral Deportation Power
DHS announced a new policy designed to dramatically expand expedited removal to apply throughout the United States to anyone who has been in the United States for less than two years; the American Immigration Council is already planning litigation.
AILA Quicktake #271: DHS Announces the Expansion of Expedited Removal
AILA Associate Director of Government Relations Kate Voigt discusses DHS's announcement about a new policy, effective 7/23/19, to dramatically expand expedited removal, which will ramp up ICE's power everywhere in the United States, subjecting hundreds of thousands of people to rapid deportation.
CA3 Upholds Denial of Cancellation of Removal to Indian Businessman Who Had Resided in the United States Since 1998
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner, who had entered the U.S. in 1998 from India on a visitor’s visa, was ineligible for cancellation of removal, because he could not show that the requisite hardship would result from his removal. (Radiowala v. Att’y Gen., 7/22/19)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Guatemalan Petitioner Who Received Extortion Threats from Gangs
The court upheld the BIA and IJ’s finding that there was a lack of a nexus between the extortion threats and gang harassment that the petitioner had experienced in Guatemala and any protected ground for relief. (Hernandez-Garcia, et al. v. Barr, 7/22/19)