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
Client Flyer: What Happens During a Government Shutdown?
AILA provides an easy flyer for you to share with your clients to help them understand what happens to immigration-related agencies during a government shutdown. There are two versions available: a generic PDF version and a customizable Word version. Share widely.
EOIR to Transition to DOJ Login
EOIR announced new procedures for accessing the ECAS Case Portal. All users will need to take action to move from User Login IDs to a DOJ Login ID. EOIR developed detailed instructions for this phased transition and will notify users by email when to activate their new DOJ Login ID.
Practice Pointer: Top 10 Things You Need to Know about the USCIS Fee Rule
AILA provides this practice resource to alert members to the most important aspects of the new fee rule so that you may better understand the impact of the new fee schedule on your clients’ cases.
BIA Says That IJ Ordinarily Cannot Review Merits of Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence Withdrawn Prior to Adjudication
The BIA held that when a petition to remove the conditions on residence is withdrawn before USCIS prior to adjudication, the IJ ordinarily cannot review the merits of that petition in removal proceedings. Matter of Bernardo, 28 I&N Dec. 781 (BIA 2024)
CA11 Says Petitioner Lacked Standing to Bring Constitutional Challenge Against Former Statute on Derivative Citizenship
The court held that petitioner lacked standing to raise a constitutional challenge against former INA §321(a), where he alleged that the former statute discriminated against unmarried fathers based on sex and against black children based on race. (Lodge v. Att’y Gen., 1/26/24, amended 2/7/24)
CA9 Says It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Petitioner’s Continuance and Motion to Remand Under INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i)
Applying INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i) as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Patel v. Garland, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the petitioner’s continuance and motion to remand. (Figueroa Ochoa v. Garland, 6/20/23, amended 2/6/24)
Policy Brief: AILA Analysis of the Border and Immigration Provisions of the “Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024”
With unprecedented levels of global migration and an outdated U.S. immigration system pushing more migrants to the southern border, solutions are urgently needed. The Senate’s emergency spending bill includes the most extensive border funding and security measures proposed in decades, perhaps ever.
Practice Alert: Latest Information on the Juvenile Dockets
AILA provides takeaways from ICE’s stakeholder meeting on January 24, 2024, with information regarding the implementation and expansion of specialized juvenile dockets.
AILA Executive Director Responds to Release of Bipartisan Senate Bill
AILA Executive Director Ben Johnson responded to the newly released bill text from the bipartisan group of Senators negotiating the “Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024.”
CA4 Says Petitioner’s Hearing Was Not Fundamentally Unfair Despite IJ’s Erroneous Admission of Form I-9
The court held that the BIA and IJ did not err in finding that the petitioner was required to establish her admissibility “clearly and beyond doubt,” and rejected the petitioner’s contention that her evidentiary hearing was fundamentally unfair. (Santana v. Garland, 2/2/24)
BIA Says DHS Cannot Remedy NTA Lacking Date and Time of Hearing by Filing Form I-261
The BIA held that DHS cannot remedy a Notice to Appear (NTA) that lacks the date and time of the initial hearing before the IJ by filing a Form I-261, because that remedy is contrary to 8 CFR §1003.30 and Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Matter of Aguilar Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 774 (BIA 2024)
USCIS Seeks Feedback to Help Shape the USCIS Customer Experience for Appointment Requests
You can now use the USCIS website to request an in-person appointment at a field office for assistance with emergency advanced paroles, Immigration Judge grants, and ADIT stamps. USCIS seeks feedback from both applicants and legal representatives on this new process. Responses due by 2/8/24.
CA4 Holds That IJs May Make Partial or Mixed Adverse Credibility Determination If Supported by Substantial Evidence
The court found that the IJ properly made a mixed finding about credibility, and that the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s determination that petitioners failed to show a nexus between past or feared future harm and any familial relationship. (Ayala-Osegueda, et al. v. Garland, 2/1/24)
CA8 Remands Where BIA Failed to Provide Reasoned Explanation for Its Application of Motion-to-Reopen Standard
The court held that the IJ failed to reference the petitioner’s motion to reopen or the standard for considering it, and that the BIA failed to adequately explain its application of the motion-to-reopen standard when it affirmed the IJ’s decision. (Davis v. Garland, 2/1/24)
ICE ERO Provides Information on Beta Testing of eFile for Legal Representations
ICE announced the national launch of a new online platform, called ERO eFile, that will allow for the electronic filing of Form G-28. ICE provides a quick reference guide to eFile.
Final Rule Adjusting the USCIS Fee Schedule
Final rule adjusting the USCIS fee schedule. The final rule will be effective 4/1/24. Any benefit request postmarked on or after 4/1/24 must be accompanied with the fees established by this final rule. (89 FR 6194, 1/31/24)
AILA Responds to New Biden Administration Rules on Fees and H-1B Registration Process
AILA responded to the advance copies shared publicly by the Biden Administration regarding U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) fees and a revised H-1B visa registration process with insights from President Farshad Owji and Dir of Gov’t Relations Shev Dalal-Dheini.
CA8 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Guatemalan Petitioner Who Received Threats Due to Father’s Unpaid Debt
The court held that the petitioner neither demonstrated that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected factor, nor offered credible, specific evidence that a reasonable person in his position would fear persecution if he returned to Guatemala. (Gaspar-Felipe v. Garland, 1/30/24)
USCIS Provides Summary of Its Final Rule to Adjust Certain Immigration and Naturalization Fees
USCIS provided a summary of its final rule, including information on the new fee schedule, the asylum program fee for employment-based petitions, naturalization fee changes, international adoption validity period changes, and more.
CA4 Upholds Asylum Denial to Salvadoran Petitioner Who Failed to Show Nexus Between His Extortion and Family Membership
The court held that the IJ and BIA did not err in determining that the Salvadoran petitioner had failed to establish nexus between his claimed social group and his extortion by the MS-13 gang, and thus upheld the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. (Lopez-Benitez v. Garland, 1/30/24)
BIA Finds New Evidence Showed Respondent Was Detained Pursuant to INA §236(a) and Was Thus Entitled to Bond Hearing
Unpublished BIA decision holds that the respondent who claimed fear of persecution and who had not received a credible fear interview was entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to INA §236 based on new evidence indicating that she was in removal proceedings under INA §240. (Matter of –, 1/30/24)
Is Chevron Dead? Thoughts after Oral Arguments in Relentless, Inc. and Loper Bright Enterprises
Brian Green and Stephen Yale-Loehr describe the recent oral arguments in two SCOTUS cases which could dramatically affect federal agency review; it is yet unclear whether the decisions will hurt or help immigrants when challenging ambiguous agency decisions or interpretations.
A Bridge We Can All Cross
AILA members César Magaña Linares and Raquel Fernández—a Salvadoran Dreamer with TPS and a second generation Venezuelan American—call for intra-immigrant solidarity.
CA6 Upholds Asylum Denial After Finding That Petitioner Failed to Show State-Sanctioned Persecution
The court upheld the BIA’s determination that the petitioner, who alleged that he had been persecuted in Ghana on account of his political opinions and party membership, failed to establish state action and was thus ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. (Owusu v. Garland, 1/24/24)
CA1 Remands Asylum Claim of Salvadoran Petitioner Who Was Threatened by Cattle Thieves and Beaten by Police
The court vacated the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief as to petitioner, who had been threatened by cattle thieves who murdered his father and who had been beaten by the police in El Salvador. (Pineda-Maldonado v. Garland, 1/24/24)