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
BIA Clarifies Asylum Eligibility for Spouses/Partners in Forced Sterilization/Abortion Cases
The BIA held that an alien whose spouse was forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization can establish past persecution if they were legally married at the time. Matter of S-L-L, 24 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Says Persecution Does Not Require Serious Injury
The court found that the BIA does not require applicants claiming persecution to show permanent or serious injury and that persecution encompasses a variety of adverse treatment including non-physical forms of harm. (Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 9/19/06)
CA3 Criticizes IJ for Jumping Eagerly on Each Slip of the Tongue
The court held that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and determination that, if credible, Petitioner’s testimony did not establish past persecution, were not supported by substantial evidence. (Gabuniya v. Gonzales, 9/19/06)
CA9 En Banc Panel Discusses Date Admissibility is Determined for SAW Beneficiaries
The court held that admissibility for SAW beneficiaries is determined as of the date of admission for lawful temporary residence, and is not redetermined as of the date of adjustment to lawful permanent residence. (Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 9/15/06)
CA1 Finds Past Persecution Claim Waived
The court held that Petitioner’s past persecution claim was barred where he failed to set forth a developed argument, despite a heading in his brief titled, “The IJ erred in finding that respondent had not suffered past persecution.” (Silva v. Gonzalez, 9/15/06)
CA2 Says Stay of Voluntary Departure Must Be Explicitly Requested
The court refused to stay voluntary departure where Petitioners moved for a stay of removal before their voluntary departure period expired, but did not explicitly request a stay of voluntary departure. (Iouri v. Ashcroft, 9/13/06)
CA9 Holds BIA Cannot Change Voluntary Departure Period Granted by IJ in a Streamlined Order
The court held that 8 CFR §1003.1(e)(4), which permits a single Board member to affirm an IJ’s decision without opinion, requires the member to affirm all of the IJ’s decision, including the length of the voluntary departure period. (Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 9/13/06)
BIA Finds Delay By Overnight Courier Not An "Exceptional Circumstance"
The BIA held that it lacked authority to extend the 30-day time limit for filing an appeal and a one day delay by an overnight delivery service did not warrant consideration of an untimely appeal on certification. Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Holds INA §242(b)(2) Dictates Venue, Not Jurisdiction
The court held that it was not compelled to transfer the petition for review to the circuit where Petitioner’s immigration proceedings were held because INA §242(b)(2) is a venue provision, not a jurisdictional mandate. (Moreno-Bravo v. Gonzales, 9/12/06)
BIA Finds 237(a)(1)(H) Waiver Applies to Innocent Misrepresentations
The BIA held that INA §237(a)(1)(H) authorizes a waiver of removability regardless of whether the misrepresentation at the time of admission was willful or innocent. Matter of Guang Li Fu, 23 I&N Dec. 985 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Says IJ Applied Wrong Legal Standard in Albanian Asylum Case
The court found that the IJ’s own words – “the respondent[s have] not met their burden of showing that they would be persecuted upon their return” – demonstrate that he imposed an improperly heightened burden. (Karaj v. Gonzales, 9/5/06)
CA5 Holds BIA Erred in Ordering Petitioner Removed
The court held that, under INA §240(a)(1)-(3), only an IJ can order removal in the first instance. Therefore, the BIA erred in ordering Petitioner removed without remanding the case to the IJ for further proceedings. (James v. Gonzales, 9/5/06)
BIA Updates Revised Practice Advisory Regarding First Briefing Extensions
BIA notice updates an earlier advisory on revised briefing deadlines for cases before the Board where the individual is detained. Now the BIA will follow a 21 day briefing schedule and generally allow one extension request. Notice updates 71 FR 40151 published 7/14/06. (71 FR 51856, 8/31/06)
CA1 Finds Changed Conditions for Politically Active Greek Albanian
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that conditions had changed in Albania, including the 2003 elections, and the fact that a Greek candidate won in Petitioner’s hometown. (Bollanos v. Gonzales, 8/31/06)
CA1 Upholds BIA Denial of Motion to Reopen Pakistani Asylum Claim
The court found that even if the BIA had accepted as true the newspaper articles submitted with Petitioner’s motion, it could reasonably accept the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner could find refuge elsewhere in Pakistan. (Abdullah v. Gonzales, 8/31/06)
BIA Holds Offense Must be Completely “Political” To Qualify for Waiver
The BIA held that “purely political offense” exception to inadmissibility only applied to CIMTs that are completely or totally “political” and respondent’s conviction for aiding and abetting the murder of two British corporals did not qualify. Matter of O'Cealleagh, 23 I&N Dec. 976 (BIA 2006)
EOIR OPPM 06-02: Delegation of Signature Authority
EOIR issues Operating Policies and Procedure Memorandum (OPPM) 06-02: Delegation of Signature Authority, in which the acting Chief Immigration Judge delegates signature authority to certain EOIR personnel for various purposes. This OPPM cancels OPPM 04-02, dated April 23, 2004.
CA7 Holds Thai DEA Informant Denied Statutory Right to Present Asylum Evidence
CA7 held that Petitioner was denied her right to present evidence in support of her asylum request. The IJ’s refusal to consider Petitioner’s rebuttal to evidence that she committed a serious non-political crime in Thailand was unfair. (Pronsivakulchai v. Gonzales, 8/29/06)
CA11 Finds that IJ Can Reopen Proceedings After Removal
The court held that even though Petitioner had already been removed, the IJ retained jurisdiction to reopen in absentia proceedings to address whether Petitioner had received notice of the hearing. (Contreras-Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 8/29/06)
CA11 Holds IJ Abused Discretion in Denying Continuance Where Petitioner Has Pending I-140 and I-485
The court held that it was an abuse of discretion to deny Petitioner’s motion for continuance where Petitioner had an I-140 visa petition and concurrently filed I-485 adjustment of status application pending with DHS. (Merchant v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 8/25/06)
CA11 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial
CA11 held that the discretionary bar to judicial review at INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not apply because denials of motions to continue are not statutorily-proscribed discretionary acts ‘specified under [the relevant] subsection’ to the Attorney General.” (Zafar v. US Att’y Gen., 8/24/06)
CA1 Finds Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud Is an Aggravated Felony
The court applied the modified categorical approach and found “clear and convincing evidence” to establish that Petitioner’s bank fraud conviction was an aggravated felony. (Conteh v. Gonzales, 8/22/06)
CA2 Says IJ Erred in Using Husband’s I-589 to Deny Wife’s Claim
The court found that the IJ erred by preferring assertions in the husband’s application to those in the wife's and then arbitrarily using the assertions to find her not credible. (Bao v. Gonzales, 8/22/06)
CA9 Holds BIA Erred in Denying Motion to Reopen Involving Vacated Conviction
CA9 held that a person already removed may reopen his proceedings where a conviction that was key to the govt’s removal case is subsequently vacated. The BIA erred in requiring that the vacated conviction constitute the “sole ground” of deportability. (Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 8/21/06)
CA10 Extends St. Cyr to Individuals Who Waived Appeal of Their Convictions Pre-IIRAIRA
The court held that the IIRAIRA elimination of 212(c) for persons who proceeded to trial, but waived their right to appeal their aggravated felony convictions when §212(c) relief was potentially available, is impermissibly retroactive. (Hem v. Maurer, 8/18/06)