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
CA1 Finds Petitioner Failed to Satisfy Prejudice Requirement for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen his 2012 removal order, finding that the petitioner failed to show sufficient prejudice resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel upon which he based his motion to reopen. (Franco-Ardon v. Barr, 4/26/19)
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus Brief on Destruction of Records and Legislative Decriminalization
AILA and other advocates submitted an amicus brief to the Third Circuit in Khan v. Barr urging that the petition for review be granted, arguing that after an offense is decriminalized, the conviction should not continue to have immigration consequences.
AILA Submits Comments on DOJ’s ANPRM on Limited Representation Before EOIR
AILA submitted comments in response to DOJ’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on potential amendments to EOIR regulations governing the rules of practice and the scope of appearance and representation before the immigration courts and the BIA.
CA5 Finds BIA's Retroactive Application of Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga Violates Due Process
The court found that the BIA erred in applying the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) announced in 2016 in Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga to the petitioner's 2007 conviction for attempted theft. (Monteon-Camargo v. Barr, 3/14/19, amended 4/26/19)
CA3 Grants Motion to Reopen Where BIA Ignored Petitioner’s Evidence of Materially Changed Country Conditions
The court vacated the BIA’s order denying the motion to reopen and remanded, holding that the BIA abused its discretion when it failed to meaningfully consider evidence and arguments presented by the Christian Indonesian petitioner and to explain its conclusions. (Liem v. Att'y Gen., 4/19/19)
CA2 Says Outspoken Critic of ICE May Challenge Imminent Deportation Through Writ of Habeas Corpus
The court held that the appellant stated a cognizable constitutional claim, and that although Congress intended to strip all courts of jurisdiction over his claim, the Suspension Clause requires that he can bring his challenge through the writ of habeas corpus. (Ragbir v. Homan, 4/25/19)
BIA Orders New Hearing Due to Issues with Interpreter
Unpublished BIA decision remands for new hearing because IJ had to repeatedly admonish interpreter for providing incorrect responses to questions and one such error occurred during a crucial question. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Flores-Arvayo, 4/25/19)
BIA Holds Connecticut Theft Statute Not an Aggravated Felony
Unpublished BIA decision holds that Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-119 is not an aggravated felony theft offense in light of Second Circuit statement that prior contrary case law is not controlling. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Luna, 4/24/19)
BIA Finds Conviction for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree in New York Does Not Render Petitioner Removable
Unpublished BIA decision holds that DHS did not meet its burden of establishing that a conviction for grand larceny in the second degree under New York law rendered the respondent removable under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(iii). Courtesy of Michael Goldman. (Matter of Reyes, 4/24/19)
CA7 Grants Asylum to Mexican Man Persecuted After Refusing to Allow Cartel Leader to “Possess” His Wife
The court found that the record compelled a finding that the torture and persecution the petitioner had suffered in the past and feared in the future were and would be because of his membership in the particular social group of his wife’s family. (Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr, 4/24/19)
CA9 Says Third-Degree Robbery in Oregon Is an Aggravated Felony (Withdrawn)
The court held that petitioner’s conviction for third-degree robbery under Oregon Revised Statutes §164.395 was a categorical theft offense, and thus found he was removable for an aggravated felony theft offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G). (Lopez-Aguilar v. Barr, 4/23/19, withdrawn 8/29/19)
ABA Sends Letter to Attorney General Urging Reconsideration of Matter of M-S-
The American Bar Association (ABA) sent a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr urging him to reconsider Matter of M-S-, stating that it “will result in an increase in length and unnecessary detention of vulnerable asylum seekers at significant cost to the government.”
CA2 Upholds Asylum Denial to Petitioner Convicted of First-Degree Assault in Connecticut
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for first-degree assault in Connecticut was an aggravated felony, and that the invalidation of 18 USC §16(b) in Sessions v. Dimaya did not necessitate a remand to the BIA for consideration of this issue. (Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 4/23/19)
CA5 Says 30-Day Filing Deadline in INA §242(b)(1) Applies to the Savings Provision in INA §242(a)(2)(D)
The court held it lacked jurisdiction under INA §242(a)(2)(D)’s savings provision to consider petitioner’s collateral attack on her reinstated in absentia removal order, because a petition for review of the underlying removal order was not filed within 30 days. (Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 4/22/19)
DOS Final Rule on Discontinuance of Visa Grants Pursuant to INA §243(d)
DOS final rule setting out the procedures that consular officers in a country subject to sanctions under INA §243(d) for refusal to accept one or more of its nationals ordered removed from the U.S. must follow to discontinue granting certain visas to nationals of that country. (84 FR 16610, 4/22/19)
BIA Holds New York Theft of Services Not a CIMT
Unpublished BIA decision holds theft of services under N.Y.P.L. 165.15(3) is not a CIMT because it does not require intent to deprive an owner of property and lacks a sufficiently reprehensible and depraved fraudulent intent component. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Gil Cabral, 4/22/19)
BIA Holds Vacated Plea No Longer Valid for Immigration Purposes
Unpublished BIA decision holds that guilty plea vacated because criminal attorney did not advise respondent of adverse immigration consequences is no longer a conviction for immigration purposes. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Isaac Napoles, 4/22/19)
Former IJ Jeffrey Chase Discusses a Better Approach to “Unable or Unwilling” Analysis
Former Immigration Judge Jeffrey Chase discussed the Sixth Circuit decision in K.H. v. Barr and the insurmountable hurdle for K.H. to establish that the government of Guatemala was unable or unwilling to control the gang members who had persecuted her.
CA3 Says That Disparate Treatment in INA §309 Is Rationally Related to Legitimate Government Interests
The court denied the petition for review, holding that INA §309, which treats adopted and biological children differently for automatic derivative citizenship purposes, is rationally related to advancing legitimate government interests. (Cabrera v. Att'y Gen., 4/19/19)
USCIS Issues Policy Alert on Controlled Substance-Related Activity and Good Moral Character Determinations
USCIS issued guidance to clarify that violation of federal controlled substance law, including for marijuana, remains a conditional bar to establishing good moral character for naturalization even where that conduct would not be a state law offense. Effective 4/19/19. Comment period ends 5/2/19.
BIA Reverses Denial of Adjustment Based on Lack of Good Moral Character and Marital Bona Fides
Unpublished BIA decision holds that IJ erroneously denied adjustment based on lack of good moral character and bona fides of marriage because former is not a statutory requirement and latter was demonstrated by approval of Form I-130. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Mosli, 4/19/19)
Practice Pointer: Completing Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal
AILA’s Asylum and Refugee Committee provided this practice pointer with tips to help ensure proper completion of Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.
BIA Holds That Canada Fraud Statute Is Not a CIMT
Unpublished BIA decision affirms that categorical approach applies to foreign convictions and holds that fraud under section 380(b)(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is not a CIMT. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Omer, 4/18/19)
CA11 Upholds Asylum Denial to Salvadoran Who Received Gang Threats, over Dissent
In an unpublished decision, the court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Atlanta Immigration Court (AIC) had denied her equal protection rights. The dissent noted that the petitioner’s statistics regarding the AIC merited further inquiry by the BIA. (Diaz-Rivas v. Att’y Gen., 4/18/19)
BIA Affirms IJ’s Decision to Terminate Removal, Finding Fraud Conviction Not a CIMT
In an unpublished BIA decision, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision to terminate removal proceedings, finding that the crime of fraud under $5,000, in violation of section 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada is not a CIMT. Courtesy of Richard Hanus.