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
CA5 Holds No Jurisdiction to Review “Extreme Cruelty” Determination
CA5 held that INA §242(a)(2)(B) barred jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Petitioner had not suffered “extreme cruelty” by her USC spouse for purposes of “special rule” cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(2)(A)(i)(I). (Wilmore v. Gonzales, 7/5/06)
Sentencing Advisory Guidelines Letter
Sample letter to U.S. Attorney requesting information germane to sentencing under advisory guidelines—should Defendant be convicted as charged—to advise Defendant on consequences of pleading guilty or requesting trial. (Criminal Procedure; Discovery or Supplementing Certified Administrative Record)
CA2 Reverses IJ’s Fake Document Finding in Chinese Asylum Claim
The court held that the IJ engaged in speculation and made improper inferences in concluding that Petitioner’s 1989 and 1998 marriage certificates were fake. (Li v. INS, 6/29/06)
CA2 Remands Chinese Asylum Claim Due to IJ Bias and Hostility
The court found that apart from flaws in the adverse credibility finding, remand was required because of the IJ’s hostility, noting that the IJ’s questioning was inappropriate and indicated a bias toward Chinese witnesses. (Huang v. Gonzales, 6/29/06)
BIA Finds Derivative Citizenship Where Paternity Not Legitimated By Marriage
The BIA held that where the respondent was born out of wedlock in Guyana and his natural parents were never married, his paternity was not established through legitimation, so he is not ineligible to obtain derivative citizenship. Matter of Lawrence Rowe, 23 I&N Dec. 962 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Reconciles Case Law on BIA Remands
The court reconciled two precedent decisions on when remand to the BIA would be futile, finding remand not appropriate when the court is confident that the agency would reach the same result upon a reconsideration cleansed of errors. (Lin v. Gonzales, 6/28/06)
CA11 Holds BIA Abused its Discretion in Summarily Dismissing Appeal
The court held that where the notice of appeal sets forth its basis, the BIA erred in summarily dismissing it solely because Petitioners indicated that they would file a supporting brief, but failed to do so or offer an explanation for not doing so. (Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 6/28/06)
CA11 Holds a Timely Filed Motion to Reopen Tolls Voluntary Departure Period
The court held that a timely filed motion to reopen tolls the period of voluntary departure to afford the opportunity for a ruling on the merits of the motion, without jeopardizing eligibility for benefits sought by overstaying the voluntary departure period. (Ugokwe v. Att’y Gen., 6/28/06)
EOIR OPPM 06-01: Fee Waiver Form
EOIR issues Interim Operating Policies and Procedure Memorandum (OPPM) 06-01: Fee Waiver Form, which requires Immigration Judges use the attached standard fee waiver order whenever waiving a fee, including in detained cases, pursuant to 8 CFR § 1003.24(d).
CA3 Holds a Person Already Removed from the U.S. Is Not “In Custody” for Habeas Jurisdiction
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a habeas petition filed after the petitioner had been removed from the U.S. because he was not “in custody” of DHS. (Kumarasamy v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 6/23/06)
CA3 Finds Jurisdiction to Stay Voluntary Departure Period
The court found jurisdiction to grant a stay of the voluntary departure period because there is no indication that Congress intended to eliminate such jurisdiction. (Obale v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 6/22/06)
Supreme Court Upholds Retroactive Application of Reinstatement of Removal (Updated 7/7/06)
The Court held INA §241(a)(5) applies to persons who illegally reentered prior to the effective date of IIRIRA and did not take any affirmative steps towards legalizing status, but declined to decide whether the provision applies retroactively. (Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 6/22/06)
CA3 Remands for Determination of Whether Vacated Conviction Stands for Immigration Purposes
The court held that the BIA erred in ignoring Petitioner's sole argument that he was no longer removable by virtue of his vacated conviction and remanded the case to the Board to determine whether the conviction still stands for immigration purposes. (Cruz v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA2 Remands Where BIA Granted Relief to Spouse on Same Facts
The court remanded to ensure that the denial of the wife's claim was not arbitrary in light of its grant of relief to the husband, where husband and wife feared persecution based on the birth of two children in the U.S. (Zhang v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA6 Refuses to Impute Parents’ Fraudulent Conduct to Their Minor Child
The court held that, for purposes of establishing inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(6)(c)(i), the BIA’s decision to impute the parents’ fraudulent conduct to their minor child is impermissible and an unreasonable interpretation of the INA. (Singh v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA10 Discusses Grounds for Contesting Removal under the Visa Waiver Program
CA10 held that the district director did not err in removing Petitioner, who entered the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program, without first considering his self-petition for classification as a battered spouse and adjustment of status. (Schmitt v. Maurer, 6/20/06)
CA10 Amends Opinion Holding INA §245(i) Trumps §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)
The court amended its opinion but continued to hold that Congress intended to permit §245(i) adjustment of status for persons subject to the permanent bar under 212(a)(9)(C)(1)(i). (Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 6/19/06)
CA4 Vacates Removal Order Amid Discussion of “Date of Admission” Under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i)
The court held that the BIA erred in concluding that the “date of admission” under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i) may include the date of adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, when a person has previously been inspected and admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor. (Aremu v. Gonzales, 6/19/06).
CA2 Resolves Timing Issue for MTRs Based on Changed Conditions
The court held that for purposes of a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, the date the record was closed by the IJ is the date prior to which any evidence must be unavailable. (Norani v. Gonzales, 6/16/06)
CA1 Refuses to Reinstate Expired Period of Voluntary Departure
The court held that because INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction to review a discretionary determination on voluntary departure, it did not have authority to create a new voluntary departure period or reinstate an expired one. (Onikoyi v. Gonzales, 6/16/06)
CA7 Holds IJ’s Refusal to Continue Hearing Resulted in Denial of Due Process
CA7 held that the hearing on the merits was fundamentally unfair in light of the improper withdrawal of Petitioner’s attorney, the attorney’s retention of Petitioner’s documents, and the IJ’s refusal to continue Petitioner’s hearing. (Gjeci v. Gonzales, 6/15/06)
EOIR Meets with Second Circuit Regarding Surge in Federal Appeals
BIA judges and IJs met with Second Circuit judges to discuss issues related to the surge of immigration cases reaching the circuit courts, including: the nature of immigration cases, BIA and IJ working procedures, changes to the administrative system, and reasons for increases in federal appeals.
BIA Finds Social Visibility Important in Determining Whether a Particular Social Group Exist
The BIA held that social visibility of a claimed social group is important in identifying if a “particular social group” exists and that a group of former drug informants working against the Cali cartel did not have the requisite social visibility. Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951 (BIA 2006)
MOA Between USCIS and ICE on the Issuance of NTAs
Memorandum of Agreement between USCIS and ICE, setting forth when each party may issue an NTA following a USCIS adjudication. The MOA applies to cases adjudicated on or after 10/1/06 and was released to AILA on 8/26/10 in response to a FOIA request initiated in March 2009.
CA10 Refuses to Apply CA9 Law on Immigration Consequences of CA9 Conviction
Although Petitioner was convicted within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, the court refused to apply 9th Circuit law to determine whether his conviction stood for immigration purposes because his immigration proceedings took place in the 10th Circuit. (Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 6/14/06)