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
AILF/AILA Comment Opposes Regulations on Eligibility of "Arriving Aliens" to Adjust Status in Removal Proceedings
AILF and AILA submitted comments opposing interim rules promulgated by CIS and EOIR suggesting unnecessary and harmful limits on the exercise of discretion in adjustment cases filed by "arriving aliens" in removal cases.
CA4 Discusses Delivery Presumptions for Notices to Appear
The court held that for purposes of rescinding an in absentia removal order, where a notice to appear is sent by regular mail, the BIA abused its discretion by requiring Petitioner to rebut the “strong presumption” of delivery for certified mail. (Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 6/13/06)
CA5 Holds AG’s Heightened Standard of Review for §209(c) Waivers Is Not Ultra Vires
The court held that the AG’s imposition of a heightened standard of review to §209(c) waivers of inadmissibility that are sought by “violent criminals” was within the scope of his discretion as conferred by the INA and therefore, not ultra vires. (Jean v. Gonzales, 6/9/06)
CA1 Reverses IJ Denial of Motion to Rescind In Absentia Order
The court held that the denial of Petitioner’s motion to rescind and reopen proceedings was based on an error of law where the IJ failed to consider the “totality of the circumstances” when evaluating “exceptional circumstances.” (Kaweesa v. Gonzales, 6/9/06)
Snapshot of the Hagel/Martinez Compromise (S. 2611)
AILA’s summary of the 795-page “Hagel/Martinez compromise" (S. 2611) passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006.
BIA Denies Relief to Burmese Chin Based on Finding of Material Support
The BIA rejected a “totality of the circumstances” test for whether an organization is engaged in terrorist activity and refused to consider an alien’s intent in making a donation or the recipient’s intended use when deciding “material support”. Matter of S-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 936 (BIA 2006)
AG Remands Material Support Bar Case to BIA
The AG remands case in light of the 2/20/07 determination of the DHS Secretary that INA Sec. 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) shall not apply with respect to material support provided to the Chin National Front/Chin National Army. Matter of S-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 289 (AG 2007)
CA1 Finds No Well-Founded Fear in Cambodian Asylum Claim
The court held that Petitioners’ political involvement was low-level to nonexistent, and that they failed to establish that political beliefs would be imputed to them or that they were similarly situated to those who suffered abuses. (Sou v. Gonzales, 6/7/06)
BIA on Effective Date of CSPA
In an unpublished decision, the BIA remanded, finding that the respondent's adjustment application was pending before the Immigration Court after 8/6/02, the date of enactment of CSPA, and she qualifies as a "child" under CSPA formula. Courtesy of Juan Lorenzo Rodriguez Quesada.
CA8 Holds No Jurisdiction to Review IJ’s Findings on Country Conditions
The court held that Petitioner’s challenge of the IJ’s factual determination regarding country conditions in Afghanistan is not a reviewable “question of law” under INA §242(a)(2)(D). (Hanan v. Gonzales, 6/6/06)
CA7 Remands for Reconsideration of Evidence of Removability
CA7 remanded for the BIA to reconsider its decision finding Petitioner removable. The IJ erred in concluding that the Attorney General Guidelines for INS undercover operations, which were established prior to INS’s reorganization, did not apply to DHS. (Pieniazek v. Gonzales, 6/5/06)
CA2 Remands for Consideration of Imputed Political Opinion
The court held that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that because Petitioner was not directly harmed by the Ethiopian government he did not have a well-founded fear, and that the IJ and BIA failed to take into account imputed political opinion. (Maidal v. INS, 6/5/06)
CA2 Rejects Adverse Credibility Finding
In an unpublished decision, the court held that Petitioner’s testimony was not vague where he provided details about his duties with the police force and his involvement in the Democratic Party in Albania and was not asked for additional details. (Shurdho v. Gonzales, 6/1/06)
CA2 Says Adverse Credibility Rests on Unsupported Assumptions
The court found that part of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination rested on unsupported assumptions about how Burma’s military regime operates. (Htin v. BCIS, 6/1/06)
CA3 Remands for Review by Three-Member BIA Panel
The court found that the decision of a single BIA member to forego panel review is not “committed to agency discretion” and is therefore, subject to judicial review. (Purveegiin v. Gonzales, 6/1/06)
CA2 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review BIA "Brief Order"
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Petitioner's motion seeking review of a discretionary adjustment denial and challenging the BIA’s decision to affirm an appeal by a “brief order.” (Guyadin v. Gonzales, 5/30/06)
CA2 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review BIA Decision to AWO
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the determination of a single BIA panel member to affirm a decision of the immigration judge without opinion, rather than refer the case for review by a three-member panel. (Kambolli v. Gonzales, 5/26/06)
AILA Backrounder on U.S. Ports of Entry
AILA Backgrounder on the challenges facing DHS security at ports of entry, including US-Visit, NSEERs, expedited removal, management of U.S. ports of entry, and AILA's positions on the issues.
CA11 Discusses Meaning of “Lawfully Admitted” in the 212(c) Context
CA11 held that Petitioner was not eligible under INA §212(c) because he was not “lawfully admitted” for permanent residence when INS erroneously granted his adjustment of status application in spite of his conviction involving a controlled substance. (Savoury v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 5/25/06)
BIA Rules EWI Ineligible for Adjustment Under CSPA
The BIA held that an alien who entered without inspection is not eligible for adjustment under the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 and may not amend or renew an adjustment during proceedings under 245(i). Matter of Jian An Wang, 23 I&N Dec. 924 (BIA 2006)
AILA Pro Bono Newsletter, Spring 2006
This is the inaugural issue of the Pro Bono Newsletter. Topics include AILA Wants to Recognize Your Pro Bono Work; Promote Your Organization or Program; New York Chapter Hosts Event; Know Your Rights Materials; Pro Bono Feature—Tour of the Border; Volunteer Opportunities & BIA Appeals Project.
CA1 Finds Voluntary Departure Overstay Bars Adjustment Despite BIA Reopening
The court held that the bar to adjustment of status for overstaying a period of voluntary departure applies even if the BIA later reopens the case. (DaCosta v. Gonzales, 5/24/06)
CA2 Criticizes BIA for Dragging Feet on Chinese Asylum Cases
The court remanded the case for the BIA to determine whether Petitioner’s status as a boyfriend and father would allow him to qualify as a refugee based on China’s coercive population control policies. (Pan v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 5/23/06)
CA5 Barred from Reviewing §212(c) Reversal; Affirms BIA Removal Order
The court said it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s reversal of an IJ grant of §212(c) relief. It also upheld the BIA’s act of ordering removal because, it concluded, the BIA was giving effect to the IJ’s original order of removability. (Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 5/23/06)
CA3 Finds Jurisdiction to Review IJ’s Denial of Motion to Continue
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of a motion to continue because the authority to grant continuances is not “specified under [the relevant] subchapter” to be in the discretion of the AG. (Khan v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 5/22/06)