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
Key Takeaways: ICE Open Forum at AILA’s 2022 Annual Conference
AILA’s ICE Liaison Committee provides key takeaways from the ICE Open Forum held during the 2022 Annual Conference on June 17, 2022.
USCIS Final Rule on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
USCIS final rule codifying the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The final rule implements the 9/28/21 proposed rule with some amendments. The rule is effective 10/31/22. (87 FR 53152, 8/30/22)
CA7 Finds Facially Deficient Form I-871 Did Not Violate Petitioner’s Due Process Rights Where She Failed to Show Prejudice
The court held that while there were facial deficiencies on the Form I-871 sent to the petitioner, she could not prevail on her argument that she had not been provided a fair hearing under the Fifth Amendment, because she had not provided any evidence of prejudice. (Casas v. Garland, 8/29/22)
CA9 Finds Petitioners’ Arizona Drug-Related Convictions Were Related to a Controlled Substance Under Federal Law
The court concluded that the two Arizona criminal statutes involved in the case are both divisible, and that the two petitioners had been convicted of controlled substance offenses under federal law that properly supported their orders of removal. (Romero-Millan v. Garland, 8/29/22)
CA1 Says BIA Erred by Excluding Petitioner’s New Evidence Challenging Foundational Premise of IJ’s Adverse Credibility Finding
The court held that, in denying the petitioner's motion to remand, the BIA erred by excluding petitioner’s new evidence—namely, a psychologist’s report that explained how her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) affected her ability to recount her abuse. (Rivera-Medrano v. Garland, 8/26/22)
Practice Pointer: Updated ICE Policy on Interests of Noncitizen Parents and Legal Guardians of Minor Children or Incapacitated Adults
AILA summarizes information provided at ICE’s engagement on its updated policy directive on the interests of noncitizen parents and legal guardians of minor children or incapacitated adults and provides practice tips. Special thanks to committee member Michael Sharma-Crawford for his contribution.
Client Communication in Long Removal Cases
How to stay in touch with your client when their removal case may go on for 3, 4, or 5 years!
Speaker: Christine M. Hernandez
Practice Alert: Long-Pending Joint or Unopposed Motions at the BIA
Following AILA reports of long-pending joint and unopposed motions at the BIA, EOIR confirmed that a technical glitch had caused issues identifying these cases and suggested filing a Motion to Expedite. Special thanks to the AILA EOIR Liaison Committee.
EOIR Makes Board and Immigration Court Practice Manuals Available via PDF
In response to comments from the public, EOIR made the Board and Immigration Court Practice Manuals available as downloadable PDF documents. EOIR’s Practice Manuals are “living” documents and will be revised on an ongoing basis. Public comments are also accepted at any time.
DOJ Issues Memo on the Asylum Procedures Rule
DOJ issued guidance to adjudicators on the interim final rule entitled “Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers.” Guidance is effective 8/26/22.
DOJ 60-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to EOIR-44
DOJ 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-44, Immigration Practitioner Complaint Form. Comments are due 10/24/22. (87 FR 52417, 8/25/22)
EOIR 60-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Forms EOIR-42A and EOIR-42B
EOIR 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-42A, Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents, and Form EOIR-42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents. (87 FR 52417, 8/25/22)
Biden Administration Moves to Shore Up DACA Protections but Congress Needs to Act
AILA and the American Immigration Council welcomed newly published regulations that codify the DACA program. AILA President Jeremy McKinney noted, "These regulations are essential, but laws are for lasting change," and called on Congress to "pass legislation permanently protecting all Dreamers."
CA3 Holds That Petitioner’s Conviction for Stalking in Pennsylvania Was Not a Removable Offense
Applying the categorical approach, the court held that the petitioner’s conviction under Pennsylvania’s stalking statute, 18 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. §2709.1(a)(1), did not constitute a removable offense under the INA. (Vurimindi v. Att’y Gen., 8/24/22)
Litigation Timeline: Fraihat v. ICE
The court reversed a California district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs did not provide evidence of constitutional and statutory violations on a programmatic, nationwide level to justify the extraordinary relief they requested. (Fraihat v. ICE, 10/20/21)
CA6 Finds That Exporting Stolen Vehicles in Violation of 18 USC §553 Is an Aggravated Felony Under the INA
Denying the petition for review, the court held that BIA did not err in finding that the mens rea of willful blindness encompassed in 18 USC §553(a)(1) categorically matches the mens rea requirement of a receipt of stolen property crime under INA §101(a)(43)(G). (Tantchev v. Garland, 8/19/22)
CA1 Finds BIA Erred in Concluding That Petitioner’s Two Marijuana Offenses Were Particularly Serious Crimes
The court held that the BIA failed to apply the multi-factor test for convictions that are not aggravated felonies when it found that petitioner’s two minor marijuana offenses were particularly serious crimes pursuant to INA §§208(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 241(b)(3)(B)(ii). (Dor v. Garland, 8/19/22)
CA10 Holds That a Final Order of Removal Does Not Stop the Accrual of Continuous Physical Presence
The court held that BIA erred in applying the final-order rule, which ends continuous presence when a final order of removal is issued, finding that a final removal order does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes. (Estrada-Cardona v. Garland, 8/17/22)
Practice Pointer: New OPLA PD Guidance after the Vacatur of the Mayorkas Memo
The AILA ICE Liaison Committee provides a review of Office of the Principal Legal Advisor guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion (PD) in light of the order vacating the Mayorkas memo. The committee also offers recommendations. Special thanks to ICE Liaison Committee Chair Aaron Hall.
BIA Finds Second Degree Attempted Burglary Conviction is Categorically a Conviction for Attempted Aggravated Felony Burglary
The BIA sustained DHS’s appeal and ordered respondent removed to Ukraine after finding that a conviction for second-degree burglary of a dwelling under section 140.25(2) of the New York Penal Law is categorically a conviction for generic burglary. Matter of V-A-K-, 28 I&N Dec. 630 (BIA 2022)
CA7 Finds BIA Erred in Denying Motion to Reopen Based on Changed Conditions in Ethiopia Without Full Evidentiary Hearing
The court held that BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Ethiopia without a full evidentiary hearing addressing his citizenship and its materiality to his risk of torture. (Menghistab v. Garland, 6/21/22, amended 8/17/22)
CA11 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Moved After Receiving Initial NTA Lacking Time and Place
Where the petitioner had received an initial Notice to Appear (NTA) but had then moved and failed to inform DHS, the court held he was permissibly removed in absentia even though he never received a later NTA informing him of his hearing’s time and place. (Dragomirescu v. Att’y Gen., 8/16/22)
CA8 Says Nebraska Conviction for Negligent Child Abuse Resulting in Serious Injury Was Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse
The court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner’s Nebraska conviction for negligent child abuse resulting in serious injury was categorically a crime of child abuse, nor in finding he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime. (Al-Masaudi v. Garland, 8/15/22)
CA9 Finds Petitioner’s California Conviction for Dissuading Witness from Reporting Crime Was Not an Aggravated Felony
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for dissuading or attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime in California was not “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” under INA §101(a)(43)(S), and thus was not an aggravated felony. (Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, 8/15/22)
CA9 Holds That Cancellation of Removal Applicant Must Prove Vacated Convictions Are Not Valid for Immigration Purposes
The court held that a cancellation applicant must show that a state court conviction was vacated because of a substantive or procedural defect in the criminal proceedings, and not solely for immigration purposes or for rehabilitative or equitable reasons. (Ballinas-Lucero v. Garland, 8/15/22)