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
Practice Alert: New Immigration Fees Authorized by the Reconciliation Bill
USCIS has delayed collecting new fees for certain immigration benefit requests until it can operationalize its processes. AILA expects USCIS to provide details on the implementation in the coming days.
BIA Reverses IJ’s Grant of CAT Deferral to Venezuelan Respondent After Finding No Individualized Risk of Torture
The BIA held that evidence of human rights abuses in Venezuela and past threats to the respondent did not establish an individualized risk of torture, where the last threat occurred years before respondent left the country and she was unharmed. Matter of O–Y–A–E–, 29 I&N Dec. 190 (BIA 2025)
CA9 Upholds CAT Denial as to Mexican Petitioner Who Feared Retaliation from Cartels
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding that the petitioner did not meet his burden to show that it was more likely than not he would be tortured upon his return to Mexico. (Perez Cruz v. Bondi, 7/21/25)
BIA Finds Respondent Failed to Show Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship Based on Economic Detriment and Family Separation
The BIA held respondent failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, where his U.S.-citizen wife and children would remain in the United States and treatment for their mental health conditions would not be affected by his removal. Matter of Buri Mora, 29 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2025)
BIA Holds PSG Defined Only by Noncitizen’s Sex or Sex and Nationality Is Overbroad
The BIA held that a particular social group (PSG) defined by a noncitizen’s sex or sex and nationality, standing alone, is overbroad and insufficiently particular to be cognizable. Matter of K-E-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 145 (BIA 2025)
CA1 Finds That Agency Applied Incorrect Legal Standard in Evaluating Whether Petitioners Were Removable
The court concluded that, because the petitioners were charged with inadmissibility rather than deportability, the government had the burden to prove that they were noncitizens by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence, and failed to do so. (Da Silva Borges, et al. v. Bondi, 7/18/25)
USCIS Announces Updated Fees Based on H.R. 1
USCIS will publish a Federal Register notice on 7/22/25 with updated fees based on the H.R 1 Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 1). Applicants must submit the new fees with benefit requests postmarked on or after 7/22/25. USCIS will reject any form postmarked on or after 8/21/25, without the proper fees.
CA7 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Failed to Comply with Procedural Requirements
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that he failed to fulfill the first two procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada needed to bring such a motion. (Singh v. Bondi, 7/18/25)
DOJ Notice of Extension of Form EOIR-31A
DOJ notice of extension of Form EOIR-31A, Request by Organization for Accreditation or Renewal of Accreditation of Non-Attorney Representative, used to request initial or renewed accreditation of a non-attorney representative to appear in EOIR or DHS immigration proceedings. (90 FR 34011, 7/18/25)
EOIR Notice of Extension of Form EOIR-31
EOIR notice of extension of Form EOIR-31, Request for New Recognition, Renewal of Recognition, Extension of Recognition of a Non-profit Religious, Charitable, Social Service, or Similar Organization. (90 FR 34010, 7/18/25)
EOIR Issues Policy Memo on Statutory Fees Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
EOIR Acting Director Sirce Owen issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 25-35, addressing updates in the statutory fees under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. On 7/17/25, PM 25-36 (amended) was posted to replace this PM and clarify certain points for adjudicators, including updates to the table of EOIR fees.
Detainees and Legal Service Providers Sue Trump Administration over Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” Camp
In C.M. et al. v. ICE et al., the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, and Americans for Immigrant Justice sued over inhumane conditions at “Alligator Alcatraz,” citing rights violations, lack of legal access, and isolation. Filed for detainees and their legal reps. Read more via ACLU of Florida.
CA7 Remands Asylum Claim of Petitioner Who Was Persecuted by Man Who Allegedly Killed Six of Her Family Members
The court found that the petitioner had shown the requisite nexus between her family membership and her persecution and had endured a prolonged pattern of threats and accompanying violence, and had thus established past persecution. (Mejia-Hernandez, et al. v. Bondi, 7/17/25)
DOJ Requests Data on Noncitizens in California Jails
DOJ issued requests to sheriffs in multiple major California counties—including Los Angeles and San Francisco Counties—for lists of all inmates in their jails who are not citizens of the United States, their crimes of arrest or conviction, and their scheduled release dates.
Policy Brief: The Dignity Act of 2025
On July 15, Congresswomen Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) and Veronica Escobar (D-TX) and 18 other House members introduced an updated version of the “Dignity Act.” This brief provides an analysis of key parts of the bill.
CA1 Upholds Cancellation of Removal Denial to Guatemalan Petitioner with Two U.S.-Citizen Children
The court upheld the BIA’s order affirming the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal, finding that the petitioner failed to show that her removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her two U.S.-citizen children under INA §240A(b)(1)(D). (Alay v. Bondi, 7/16/25)
U.S.-Guatemala Agreement Regarding the Transfer of Central American Nationals to Guatemala
DHS published an agreement between the U.S. and Guatemalan governments relating to the transfer of nationals of Central American countries to Guatemala, effected by exchange of diplomatic notes on 6/11/25 and 6/13/25. (90 FR 31670, 7/15/25)
CA3 Holds That BIA Exceeded Authority in Self-Certifying DHS’s Late Appeal of IJ’s Grant of LPR Status
The court held that the BIA exceeded its authority when it used an agency regulation, namely 8 CFR §1003.1(c), to self-certify DHS’s late appeal of the IJ’s order granting the petitioner’s application for adjustment to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. (Qatanani v. Att’y Gen., 7/15/25)
CA1 Upholds Cancellation Denial as to Brazilian Petitioner Based on Lack of Requisite Hardship to U.S.-Citizen Son
The court upheld the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal, finding that petitioner failed to show that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S.-citizen son, who faced troubles in school, the community, and at home. (Goncalves Leao v. Bondi, 7/14/25)
CA1 Holds That Agency Applied Incorrect Standard of Proof in Denying Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings
The court concluded that “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” requires a greater degree of proof than the “clear and convincing evidence” standard, and found the agency erred by requiring DHS to show alienage only by clear and convincing evidence. (Rosa, et al. v. Bondi, 7/11/25)
Practice Alert: Some Immigration Courts Accept Asylum Application Filings Without $100 Fee Receipt
Updated reports from members indicate some immigration courts are accepting Form I-589 filings without proof of fee payment, while other courts are reportedly still rejecting them.
BIA Holds That False SSNs and Tax Misrepresentations Are Negative Discretionary Factors Absent Reasonable Reliance on Professional Advice
The BIA held that using false or stolen Social Security numbers (SSNs) and filing false tax returns are negative discretionary factors, and that respondent’s reliance on professional advice must be supported by evidence and explanation. Matter of Gonzalez Jimenez, 29 I&N Dec. 129 (BIA 2025)
Agreement Between U.S. and Honduran Governments for Cooperation in Examination of Protection Requests
DHS published an agreement between the U.S. and Honduran governments to cooperate on protection requests, signed 3/8/25 and amended 6/25/25. It outlines conditions for Honduras to process protection requests for some asylum seekers who sought protection in the U.S. (90 FR 30076, 7/8/25)
CA2 Holds That 30-Day Deadline for Petitions for Review under INA §242(b)(1) Is Nonjurisdictional
The court held that the 30-day filing deadline in INA §242(b)(1) is not a jurisdictional rule but a nonjurisdictional claim-processing requirement, and found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi abrogated its prior ruling to the contrary. (Castejon-Paz v. Bondi, 7/8/25)
CA9 Grants Rehearing En Banc in Case Addressing Exceptional Circumstances for in Absentia Removal Order
The court granted rehearing en banc and vacated its prior opinion filed on 10/17/24, which held that the petitioner established exceptional circumstances warranting reopening her in absentia removal order under INA §240(b)(5)(C)(i). (Montejo-Gonzalez v. Bondi, 7/8/25)