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
CA8 Upholds Decision that Catholic Indonesian Did Not Suffer Past Persecution and Does Not Have a Well-Founded Fear
The court held that past persecution does not normally include unfulfilled threats of physical injury. The court also found the IJ did not err with regard to his well-founded fear finding because the harm feared was not nationwide. (Setiadi v. Gonzales, 3/3/06)
CA7 Holds a Petition for Review That Only Impacts Duration of Inadmissibility Is Ripe and Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm Is Crime of Violence
Where Petitioner conceded removability for a firearms offense but disputed the offense was a crime of violence, the court concluded the case was ripe for judicial review because resolution would determine the length of Petitioner’s future inadmissibility. (Quezada-Luna v. Gonzales, 3/3/06)
CA9 Addresses Interplay Between Discretionary Bar to Judicial Review and Motion to Reopen Denials
The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen where the BIA had previously made an adverse discretionary determination concerning relief enumerated in INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i). (Fernandez v. Gonzales, 3/2/06)
US ICE Publishes New Organizational Chart
US ICE Organizational Chart as of January 2006.
CA8 Reviews Denial of Motion to Rescind 1995 In Absentia Order for Lack of Notice of the Hearing
The court refused to consider affidavits attesting to lack of notice to determine whether Petitioner overcame the presumption of effective service because they were not submitted to the IJ and its review was limited to the record. (Rodriguez-Cuate v. Gonzales, 2/24/06)
CA9 Says §245(i) AOS Trumps Inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)
Relying on Perez-Gonzalez, CA9 held that Petitioner is eligible for adjustment of status under INA §245(i) despite inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) for having illegally reentered after having accrued more than a year of unlawful presence. (Acosta v. Gonzales, 2/23/06)
CA2 Denies Motion to Reinstate Petition for Review
The court acknowledged its authority to reinstate a petition for review “where manifest injustice would otherwise result,” but denied the motion because it concluded the petition for review was meritless. (Valbrun v. Gonzales, 2/22/06)
CA2 Discusses Subtle Inconsistencies and Credibility Determinations
In a case of first impression, the court held that where an inconsistency is not self-evident, an IJ may not rely on it without first bringing it to the attention of the applicant and giving the applicant the opportunity to explain. (Xue v. BIA, 2/21/06)
CA2 Upholds Denial of MTR in Chinese Family Planning Case
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion because it considered and rejected evidence of changed country conditions, and further concluded that remand would be futile. (Wang v. BIA, 2/17/06)
CA2 Says BIA Erred in Denying MTR, But Remand Would Be Futile
The court noted that the BIA erred in denying a motion to reopen by failing to assess whether country conditions had changed, but found that remand would be futile because the BIA addressed the error in denying the motion to reconsider. (Alam v. Gonzales, 2/17/06)
CA1 Finds Rhode Island Statutory Rape Is a Crime of Violence
The court held that third degree sexual assault under Rhode Island General Law §11-37-6 is a crime of violence because the statute clearly contemplates a substantial risk of the use of physical force against a minor. (Aguiar v. Gonzales, 2/16/06)
CA9 Says Repeal of Suspension of Deportation Has Retroactive Effect
The court said that IIRIRA’s repeal of suspension of deportation would have impermissible retroactive effect because it would attach a new disability to Petitioner's 1988 guilty plea. (Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 2/16/06).
CA9 Finds IJ’s Decision Supported by Substantial Evidence and Upholds Asylum Denial
The court affirmed the IJ’s decision that an ethnic Indian from Fiji did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear. It found that the BIA's violation of its summary affirmance regulations by including a footnote was harmless error. (Kumar v. Gonzales, 2/15/06)
CA8 Rejects Identity Challenge in Reinstatement Case
The court upheld the fingerprinting procedure used to confirm the Petitioner was previously ordered removed and the regulation permitting ICE officers to make reinstatement determinations. (Ochoa-Carillo v. Gonzales, 2/15/06)
CA5 Rejects Claim to Suppress Evidence Obtained Through Special Registration
CA5 found no basis to suppress evidence found under NSEERS. Also, a challenge to a denial of a continuance to await a labor certification to pursue adjustment under INA §245(i) requires a showing that the statutory filing deadlines were met. (Ali v. Gonzales, 2/15/06)
CA5 Concludes Assault Was Not a Crime of Violence
Concluding that “offensive or provocative contact” does not necessarily involve the use of physical force required by 18 USC §16, CA5 found an assault conviction was not a crime of violence and granted consideration of his claim under INA §212(c). (Gonzalez-Garcia v. Gonzales, 2/14/06)
CA2 Upholds Adverse Credibility, Says Remand Would Be Futile
The court found that the IJ misstated evidence and erred in speculating that Petitioner was not a Sikh but still held that there were ample grounds to support adverse credibility and that remand would be futile. (Singh v. BIA, 2/14/06)
CA3 on Retroactivity of Suspension of Deportation
Relying on former INA §244(a)(2), which requires ten years continuous physical presence and good moral character following a deportable act, the court found that Petitioner had no reasonable expectation of suspension after he entered his guilty plea. (Hernandez v. Gonzales, 2/14/06)
CA2 Says IJ Must Inquire Into Fear of Sterilization as Basis for CAT
The court noted that neither it nor the BIA had determined whether forced sterilization amounts to torture and that it was error for the IJ to conclude that Article III of CAT was inapplicable where the IJ made no individual inquiry. (Ni v. BIA, 2/13/06)
CA2 Rejects Untimely Motion to Reopen
The court held that Petitioner did not qualify for an exception for untimely motions because he did not show changed conditions in China and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was raised 20 months after the BIA’s decision. (Chen v. Gonzales, 2/13/06)
CA1 Finds No Suspension Clause Violation in State-Created Danger CAT Case
Because the case presented only legal issues which the court can review under INA §242(a)(2)(D), the court concluded that “there is no possible claim that the REAL ID Act violates the Suspension Clause.” (Enwonwu v. Gonzales, 2/13/06)
CA1 Finds Changed Conditions in Kenya
The court found that the IJ reasonably rejected the inference that the new government in Kenya is dominated by Moi supporters, and that the notion that the new democratic government would repress the opposition was not compelling. (Waweru v. Gonzales, 2/13/06)
CA2 Upholds Denial of MTR in Ethnic Albanian Asylum Claim
The court held that the DOS report contained only general statements, but the BIA did not err in finding no well-founded fear. The court was troubled, however, by the BIA’s taking of administrative notice of improved conditions in Macedonia. (Adjin v. Gonzales, 2/9/06)
CA6 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Motion to Reopen but Finds BIA Erred about a Deadline Exception
The court held that the BIA erred in finding that Petitioner’s divorce was a change in circumstances that was an exception to the filing deadline. The court held that it did not constitute changed conditions in Jordan. (Haddad v. Gonzales, 2/9/06)
BIA Rules on Failure of Trial Court to Advise of Immigration Consequences of Guilty Plea
The BIA held that a conviction, vacated pursuant to Section 2943.031 of the Ohio Revised Code for failure of trial court to advise of possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea, is no longer a valid conviction for immigration purposes. Matter of Adamiak, 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006)