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
AILA/AILF Comment on the DOJ Proposed Rule on Jurisdiction and Venue in Removal Proceedings
AILA/AILF urge DOJ to reconsider proposed regulations regarding venue determinations for removal proceedings. The proposed rule fails to carry out its intended purpose of “greater clarity and consistency of interpretation” and does not adequately address the statutory language at 8 USC §1252(b)(2).
BIA Discusses "Frivolous" Asylum Determinations
The BIA held that IJs must address the question of frivolousness separately and that the applicant must be given sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim. Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007)
CA5 Allows Retroactive Application of IIRAIRA’s Change to Aggravated Felony Definition
CA5 held that the denial o relief from removal was an “action taken,” as described in IIRAIRA §321(c), which compelled the IJ to utilize the retroactive definition and find Petitioner’s conviction for harboring aliens to constitute an aggravated felony. (Garrido-Morato v. Gonzales, 4/24/07)
CA10 Finds Reinstatement of Prior Removal Order Impermissibly Retroactive
The court held that where a petitioner was deported, reentered, married a U.S. citizen and was granted adjustment of status prior to the effective date of IIRAIRA, DHS may not retroactively apply INA §241(a)(5) to reinstate a prior order of removal. (Valdez-Sanchez v. Gonzales, 4/23/07)
BIA Holds Willful Failure to Register by a Sex Offender Is a CIMT
The BIA held that willful failure to register by a sex offender who has been previously apprised of the obligation to register, in violation of section 290(g)(1) of the California Penal Code, is a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Tobar-Lobo, 24 I&N Dec. 143 (BIA 2007)
CA2 Dismisses Petition Transferred from District Court for Lack of Jurisdiction
The court found that transfer was not available under REAL ID because the petition was not pending when the Act became effective, the petition was untimely, and no constitutional issues were raised. (Wang v. DHS, 4/19/07)
CA6 Upholds Asylum Denial but Finds Gov’t Lacks Unbridled Discretion in MTR
The court upheld the adverse credibility findings. Regarding the denial of the motion to remand based on Petitioner’s marriage to a US citizen, the court rejected the government’s argument that Velarde gives it unbridled discretion. (Sarr v. Gonzales, 4/19/07)
CA7 Finds IJ Erred in Finding Salvadoran Asylum Applicant Is a Persecutor
The court found that the BIA and the courts had not addressed the question of whether mere presence at the scene of persecution constitutes participation. It found that Petitioner’s denial of asylum is not compelled where the trial for murder was a “farce.” (Doe v. Gonzales, 4/17/07)
Judge Suspended for Denying Bail Based on Immigration Status Questions
The Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission suspends a state trial judge for two weeks without pay for denying bail to criminal defendants solely because of questions about their immigration status. Courtesy of Charles R. Baesler, Jr.
CA5 Holds Counsel’s Advice Not to Appear Warrants Rescission of In Absentia Order
The court held that the BIA failed to follow its own precedent holding that a failure to appear, which results from erroneous advice provided by an attorney or representative, may constitute an “exceptional circumstance.” (Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales, 4/16/07)
Section-by-Section Summary of the STRIVE Act (Working Draft, Updated 4/16/07)
Section-by-section summary of the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act of 2007 (H.R. 1645), prepared by AILA and the National Immigration Forum.
CA3 Overturns Adverse Credibility Finding in Nigerian Asylum Claim
The court found that the inconsistencies cited by the IJ led it to conclude that the IJ failed to take into account persuasive evidence that not only explained the inconsistencies, but also supported Petitioner’s claim of persecution. (Chukwu v. Gonzales, 4/13/07)
CA8 Holds LPR Originally Admitted as Refugee is Subject to Removal
The court joined CA3 and CA9 in holding that a person who enters the U.S. as a refugee, adjusts his status to lawful permanent resident and is thereafter convicted of a removable crime, is subject to removal even though his refugee status was never terminated. (Xiong v. Gonzales, 4/12/07)
BIA Holds IJ Reacquires Jurisdiction in Remanded Proceedings
The BIA held that when a case is remanded to an IJ for completion of the appropriate background checks, the IJ is required to enter a final order granting or denying the requested relief. Matter of M-D-, 24 I&N Dec. 138 (BIA 2007)
CA3 Finds No Jurisdiction Over Challenge to the 1-Year Asylum Deadline Veiled as Due Process Claim
The court rejected Petitioner’s attempt to recast his factual challenge as a due process claim and found no jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to excuse his failure to comply with the one-year asylum deadline. (Jarbough v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 4/11/07)
AILA Liaison/EOIR Q&As (4/11/07)
The EOIR provides answers to AILA Liaison agenda item questions from a 4/11/07 meeting (approved by EOIR in early October). Topics include BIA streamlining reforms, stipulated removal orders, EOIR's Free Legal Services Provider List, continuances for SIJS, transcripts, and BIA filing issues.
CA11 Holds Adjustment of Status Under INA §245(i) is Discretionary
The court held that the Attorney General may deny a §245(i) adjustment application as a matter of discretion, even if the applicant is statutorily eligible. (Usmani v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 4/10/07)
CA3 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Asylum Claim by VWP Entrant
The court held that a denial of a Visa Waiver Program entrant’s application for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief constitutes a “final order of removal” within the meaning of INA §242(a)(1), and is therefore subject to circuit court review. (Shehu v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 4/9/07)
CA7 Finds BIA Abused Discretion in Denying MTR Ethiopian Asylum Claim
The court held that the BIA gave no reasoned explanation for its finding that Petitioner had not provided evidence of changed conditions in Ethiopia. (Gebreeyesus v. Gonzales, 4/6/07)
CIS Ombudsman’s Office Recommendations Regarding Deferred Action
CIS Ombudsman’s Office 4/6/07 recommendations to USCIS regarding deferred action including increased posting of general information on deferred action on USCIS’s website and maintenance of statistics on the issuance and denial of requests.
Due Process: A Matter of Life and Liberty
Donna Lipinski, AILA Associate Director of Advocacy, Family and Due Process, answers “What does ‘due process’ mean?” and explains why due process is an essential element that must be part of any meaningful comprehensive reform legislation.
BIA Discusses North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004
The BIA held that the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004 does not apply to North Koreans who have availed themselves of the right to citizenship in South Korea. Matter of K-R-Y- and K-C-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 133 (BIA 2007)
CA7 Vacates Asylum Denial Due to IJ’s Bias in Religious Persecution Case
The court found that the IJ manifested a clear bias against Petitioners and that Petitioners were denied a reasonable hearing when they were labeled religious “zealots” by the IJ who also found that their exercise of religion was “offensive.” (Floroiu v. Gonzales, 4/2/07)
CA8 Finds IJ’s Bias Requires Remand in Albanian Homosexual Asylum Case
The court held that the IJ’s credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence and noted that the BIA excised certain findings by the IJ, but found that the BIA did not explain how the remaining findings were not tainted by the IJ’s bias. (Shahinaj v. Gonzales, 4/2/07)
CA8 Upholds BIA’s MTR Denial for Failure to Show Lack of Relocation Option
CA8 found that there was no evidence that the North Sulawesi region of Indonesia was unsafe for Christians and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.(Poniman v. Gonzales, 4/2/07)