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
We Must Protect Children in Immigration Proceedings
AILA Law Journal authors Lory D. Rosenberg, Susan G. Roy, Paul Schmidt, and Rekha Sharma-Crawford share some insights about their article, “Time for a Child Welfare Approach to Cancellation of Removal“ in which they focused on how the best interests of the child are routinely ignored.
AILA and the American Immigration Council Respond to a Bipartisan Framework of Immigration Reform Compromises
AILA and the Council respond to the news that Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) have reached an agreement on a draft Border and DREAM Act Deal.
CA9 Finds There Is No Exception to INA §241(a)(5) for Removal Orders That Result in a Gross Miscarriage of Justice
The court held that INA §241(a)(5), which bars reopening reinstated removal orders, has no exception for removal orders that result in a gross miscarriage of justice, and that the BIA may not reopen such reinstated removal orders sua sponte. (Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 7/18/22, amended 12/2/22)
CA9 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Untimely Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Alleged Underlying Conviction Was Invalid
The court held that BIA did not err in denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen, which was not subject to equitable tolling, and which challenged his removal order on the ground that his underlying conviction was allegedly invalid. (Perez-Camacho v. Garland, 8/1/22, amended 12/2/22)
CA3 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Motion to Reconsider After Finding Petitioner’s Waiver of Administrative Appeal Was Valid
Denying the consolidated petitions for review, the court found that the record did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner had unknowingly, involuntarily, and unintelligently waived his right to an administrative appeal under INA §242(b)(4)(B). (Alexander-Mendoza v. Att’y Gen., 12/2/22)
CA5 Distinguishes Rodriguez v. Garland Where Petitioner’s NTA Was Defective But He Received Subsequent NOH
The court denied the petition for rehearing and found that Rodriguez v. Garland was distinguishable, because although the petitioner’s Notice to Appear (NTA) was defective, he did not dispute receiving the subsequent Notice of Hearing (NOH). (Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 12/1/22)
CA5 Finds BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen of Nigerian Brothers Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of the petitioners’ motions to reopen based on ineffective counsel and in refusing to reopen their removal proceedings sua sponte. (Eneugwu v. Garland, 12/1/22)
ICYMI: ICE Issues Statement on Improper Disclosure of Noncitizen Personally Identifiable Information
ICE posted notice that a document was erroneously posted to ICE.gov for approximately five hours that included personally identifiable information of approximately 6,000 noncitizens in ICE custody. ICE is notifying noncitizens or their attorneys impacted by the disclosure.
BIA Enters Order of Disbarment Where Respondent Represented 10 People Before DHS and BIA Despite His Suspension from Practice
The BIA adopted the sanction proposed by the Disciplinary Counsels for EOIR and DHS by entering an order of disbarment, but held that it may deviate from a proposed sanction if the particular facts and circumstances warrant a different result. Matter of K. Gupta, 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022)
AILA and the American Immigration Council Respond to Supreme Court Oral Arguments in U.S. v. Texas
AILA and the Council respond to oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court in the case U.S. v. Texas, a dispute over the Biden Administration’s authority to set immigration policy.
CA5 Uphold BIA’s Denial of Withholding of Removal to Petitioner Convicted of Tax Fraud Under 18 USC §287
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for tax fraud under 18 USC §287 constituted an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(M)(i), and that the IJ had correctly applied the right legal test to find that her conviction was particularly serious. (Hammerschmidt v. Garland, 11/28/22)
CA8 Dismisses Petition Where BIA Denied Cancellation Based on Petitioner’s Failure to Satisfy Hardship Requirement
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary conclusion that the hardship the petitioner’s removal would cause his U.S.-citizen children was not substantially beyond that typically caused by a noncitizen’s removal. (Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland, 11/23/22)
AILA and Partners Submit an Amicus Brief on the Fifth Circuit’s Approach to “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies”
AILA and partners submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland arguing that the Fifth Circuit's requiring of motions to reconsider would burden and aggravate inefficient review of removal orders and the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed.
CA3 Says That Procedural Flaws in Petitioner’s Removal Hearing Did Not Prejudice His Outcome
The court held that none of the four procedural errors petitioner alleged in his removal hearing prejudiced his outcome, and further found that none of the flaws qualified for an exception to requiring proof of prejudice under the court’s precedent. (Gonzalez Aquino v. Att’y Gen., 11/22/22)
Why Everyone Should Care About the “Doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability”
AILA Law Journal authors Sabrina Damast and Eric Lee shared some insights from their recent article on “Consular Nonreviewability: Fifty Years Since Kleindienst v. Mandel“ in which they focused on this important concept and its implications for many families trying to reunite.
AILA and Partners Send Letter to White House Urging Closure of ICE Detention Sites
AILA and 113 partners sent a letter to the White House urging support for the closure of ICE detention sites, the prevention of the development of future detention sites or expansion of existing ones, and the reduction of funding for immigration detention.
CA9 Holds That Petitioner Detained Under INA §236(a) Was Not Entitled to New Bond Hearing with Government Bearing Burden of Proof
Reversing the district court’s judgment granting the petitioner’s habeas petition, the court held that due process did not entitle petitioner to a second bond hearing at which the government would bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. (Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 11/21/22)
CA8 Upholds BIA’s Determination That Asylum Applicant Did Not Adequately Corroborate Her Claim with Reasonably Available Evidence
Applying a highly deferential standard of review, the found that the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioner’s credible but weak testimony supporting her asylum claim was not adequately corroborated, and thus denied the petition for review. (Adongafac v. Garland, 11/21/22)
Attorney General Overrules Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-
The Attorney General overruled Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B- and found that, pending the outcome of the rulemaking process, IJs and BIA may consider and grant termination or dismissal of removal proceedings in limited circumstances. Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022)
Practice Alert: ICE Withdraws Attorney Notification Requirements for COVID-19 Risk Factors
AILA alerts members that ICE has discontinued certain attorney notifications in its updated Pandemic Response Requirements as of 11/1/22.
AILA and Partners Send Letter to USCIS, EOIR, and OPLA on Biometrics Appointments
AILA and partners sent a letter to USCIS, EOIR, and OPLA addressing the unnecessary hurdles non-detained people in removal proceedings face in securing a biometrics appointment prior to their merits hearing.
AILA and Partners Send Letter to DHS on Prosecutorial Discretion for Labor Disputes
AILA and partners sent a letter to Secretary Mayorkas urging DHS to release guidance on prosecutorial discretion for individuals involved in labor disputes.
CA6 Upholds CAT Denial to Iraqi Petitioner Who Claimed He Would Be Tortured Because of His Status as a Chaldean Christian
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding that substantial evidence supported BIA’s conclusion that it was not likely that he would be tortured upon removal to Iraq. (Yousif v. Garland, 11/16/22)
CA8 Finds BIA Did Not Err in Holding Petitioner Failed to Make a Prima Facie Showing of Good Moral Character in His Motion to Reopen
The court held that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner had failed to show prima facie eligibility for relief, as he failed to overcome the presumption that an applicant for hardship with multiple DUI convictions lacks good moral character. (Llanas-Trejo v. Garland, 11/16/22)
CA4 Says Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(c) Does Not Apply to Petitions for Review Governed by INA §242(b)(1)
The court held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(c) does not apply to petitions for review governed by INA §242(b)(1), and thus determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for review on the merits because it was untimely. (Santos-de Jimenez v. Garland, 11/15/22)