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
CA2 Remands for Reconsideration Following Disbarment of Attorney
The court held that in rejecting Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance, the BIA erred in failing to address the fact that Petitioner’s counsel was disbarred after the IJ proceedings. (Yang v. Gonzales, 2/22/07)
CA9 Revises its Interpretation of “Questions of Law” Under INA §242(a)(2)(D)
On rehearing, the court held that its jurisdiction over “questions of law” under INA §242(a)(2)(D) includes not only issues of statutory interpretation, but alsothe application of statutes or regulations to undisputed facts. (Ramadan v. Gonzales, 2/22/07)
BIA Finds Money Laundering in Violation of NY Penal Law is CIMT
The BIA dismissed appeal and reaffirmed decision holding that the offense of money laundering in violation of section 470.10(1) of the New York Penal Law is a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Tejwani, 24 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2007)
BIA Addresses Failure to Depart Penalty and its Exceptions
The BIA held that it lacked authority to apply “exceptional circumstances” exception to penalty provisions for failure to depart within time period for voluntary departure and defined a circumstance where one did not voluntarily fail to depart. Matter of Zmijewska, 24 I&N Dec. 87 (BIA 2007)
CA3 Holds PA Controlled Substance Conviction Is Not an Aggravated Felony
The court held that a conviction under 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §780-113(a)(30), which criminalizes the “manufacture, delivery or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance” cannot constitute an aggravated felony. (Jeune v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 2/20/07)
CA3 Upholds Asylum Denial of Angolan Army Officer
The court held that Petitioner’s five-day detention during which he sustained an injury to his jaw did not amount to persecution and that he failed to establish a well-founded fear where the record showed he had always been valued and trusted by the Angola army. (Kibinda v. Gonzales, 2/20/07)
CA11 Vacates Opinion in Colombian Kidnapping Case Removing Key Language
CA11, upon sua sponte reconsideration, vacated its prior decision, see AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 07011962, and substituted an almost identical opinion in its place. The court removed key language that “being held against one’s will” is “clearly persecution. (Ruiz v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 2/20/07)
CA9 Finds Petitioner Was Denied His Statutory Right to Counsel
The court held that Petitioner did not properly waive his right to counsel and that he was denied this right when the IJ refused to continue proceedings to allow him to appear with his attorney. (Hernandez-Gil v. Gonzales, 2/16/07)
CA7 Upholds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Finding in Ukrainian Asylum Claim
CA7 upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, noting that Petitioner was unable to explain an inconsistency in his testimony, omissions from his asylum application were significant, and he failed to submit sufficient corroborating evidence. (Shmyhelskyy v. Gonzales, 2/15/07)
CA8 Upholds Asylum Denial; Expresses Concern about Removing Elderly Couple
The court upheld the IJ’s order of removal to Russia and Latvia even though Petitioners are not citizen of either. The court stated, however, that their removal seemed contrary to the traditions of the U.S. (Pavlovich v. Gonzales, 2/14/07)
CA5 Reverses Illegal Reentry Conviction Under INA §276
Petitioner’s 2004 indictment for illegal reentry under INA §276 was barred by the 5-year statute of limitations, as the government could be attributed with actual knowledge of Petitioner’s illegal presence as of 9/28/99. (U.S. v. Gunera, 2/13/07)
CA5 Vacates District Court Decision in Light of Supreme Court’s Decision in Lopez
CA5 vacated the district court’s decision and remanded to the BIA in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, where the Supreme Court held that held that a drug conviction that qualifies as a state, but not a federal, felony is not an aggravated felony. (Salazar-Regino v. Trominski, 2/13/07)
CA8 Amends it Opinion in Ivanov, Finds IJ Abused Discretion in Granting MTR (Updated 5/31/07)
At the request of the government, the court amended its opinion but did not change the result. It found that evidence proffered in support of a motion to reopen must be material, unavailable and undiscoverable. (Ivanov v. Gonzales, 4/24/07)
CA7 Upholds IJ’s Asylum Denial and Finds Expert’s Testimony Speculative
CA7 upheld the adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between Petitioner’s testimony and a newspaper article that stated that he left Albania for economic reasons. It also found that an expert witness offered only generalized, speculative testimony. (Myslymi v. Gonzales, 2/9/07)
CA9 Upholds IJs Adverse Credibility Finding; Dissent Chastises Majority
The court upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on an inconsistency regarding a crucial date, the implausibility of Petitioner’s story and propensity for dishonesty. (Don v. Gonzales, 2/9/07)
BIA Addresses Effective Date of Child Status Protection Act
The BIA held that INA §201(f)(1) applies to an individual whose visa petition was approved before the August 6, 2002 effective date of CSPA, but the I-485 was filed after that date - such individual retains his status as a child. Matter of Avila-Perez, 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007)
CA3 Holds “Crime of Violence” Has No Statutory Counterpart for §212(c) Relief
The court upheld Matter of Brieva, finding that Petitioner was not eligible for relief under former INA §212(c) because he was found removable for a “crime of violence” which has no statutory counterpart ground of exclusion. (Caroleo v. Gonzales, 2/7/07)
CA9 En Banc Court Upholds Validity of Reinstatement Regulations at 8 CFR §241.8
The en banc court reversed the 3-judge panel decision and held that 8 CFR §241.8, which delegates authority to reinstate prior removal orders to immigration officers, and does not require a hearing before an IJ, comports with due process. (Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 2/6/07)
CA9 Holds Res Judicata Bars Initiation of Second Removal Proceedings
The court held that the doctrine of res judicata bars the government from initiating a second deportation case on the basis of a charge that could have been brought in the first case when, due to a change in the law, the first case was dismissed. (Bravo-Pedroza v. Gonzales, 2/6/07)
CA9 Finds Petitioner Was Not Properly Served with Order to Show Cause (Updated 5/21/07)
CA9 held that the govt failed to show that Petitioner or a responsible person at his address signed the certified mail receipt for his order to show cause. Matter of Grijalva permits a presumption of effective service for hearing notices, not OSCs. (Chaidez v. Gonzales, 2/14/07)
CA7 Upholds Finding Due Process Not Violated; Posner Issues Scathing Dissent
The court acknowledged that the IJ conduct was hardly a model of patience and decorum, but held that the IJ’s approach did not impede Petitioner’s “reasonable opportunity” to be heard.(Apouviepseakoda v. Gonzales, 2/2/07)
Immigration Law Advisor, January 2007 (Vol. 1, No. 1)
The inaugural issue of Immigration Law Advisor, with an article on Lopez v. Gonzales, an article with a qualitative analysis of Board decisions, circuit court decisions for 2006, federal court activity and recent BIA decisions for January 2007, a legislative update, and a regulatory update.
BIA Holds Affluent Guatemalans Do Not Constitute a Particular Social Group
BIA discusses factors to be considered in determining whether a particular social group exists, and held that affluent Guatemalans do not constitute a particular social group. Matter of A-M-E & J-G-U-, 24 I&N Dec. 69 (BIA 2007)
CA6 Says Filing a Petition for Review Does Not Toll Motion to Reconsider Deadline
CA6 held that the filing a petition for review does not toll the 30-day deadline for motions to reconsider under INA §240(c)(6)(B). To hold otherwise, would make INA §242(b)(6), which requires consolidation of multiple petitions for review, devoid of meaning. (Randhawa v. Gonzales, 1/30/07)
CA2 Upholds Determination that Advance Parolee Is an “Arriving Alien”
The court held that Petitioner, who departed and reentered the U.S. on advance parole while his adjustment application was pending, was properly treated as an “arriving alien” in removal proceedings after his adjustment was denied. (Ibragimov v. Gonzales, 1/25/07)