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 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)
CA2 Rejects "Safe Haven" Finding
The court overturned the IJ’s safe haven finding where it was issued three days after the repeal of the regulation that allowed for a discretionary denial on that basis. (Tandia v. Gonzales, 2/7/06)
CA3 Weakens Collateral Estoppel Doctrine
Although the court found the doctrine of collateral estoppel generally applies in immigration cases, it does not apply “where a clearly deportable alien continues to commit criminal acts after initial proceedings are terminated.” (Duvall v. Attorney General, 2/7/06)
CA9 Overturns IJ’s Negative Credibility Determination of Asylum Applicant Who Smuggled Falun Gong Material into China
The court held that the IJ did not identify a specific, cogent reason to support his incredibility finding, but instead relied on speculation and conjecture about Petitioner’s position in Chinese society and what someone in her position would do. (Zhou v. Gonzales, 2/7/06)
CA2 Says No Jurisdiction to Review Smuggling Waiver
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) barred review of the denial of a smuggling waiver under INA §212(d)(11) because such denials are committed to the Attorney General’s discretion. (Saloum v. Gonzales, 2/6/06)
DOJ FY2007 Budget Request
The Department of Justice (DOJ) news release highlights components of the President’s FY 2007 budget proposal for the DOJ, including $8.8 million earmarked for the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
CA2 Adopts “Totality of the Circumstances” Test for Firm Resettlement
The court adopted a totality of the circumstances test and concluded that the IJ’s finding of firm resettlement was not supported by substantial evidence. (Sall v. Gonzales, 2/3/06)
CA2 Says IJ Erred, But Upholds Negative Credibility Finding
The court held that the IJ erred in finding that Petitioner’s testimony lacked detail, but nonetheless concluded that the IJ’s denial of asylum was supported by substantial evidence. (Qyteza v. Gonzales, 2/2/06)
CA6 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial and Remand Denial but Says No Jurisdiction to Review Voluntary Departure Denial
CA6 held that, for purposes of the INA §242(a)(2)(B)(iii) jurisdiction bar, the continuance bar applies when the IJ is performing duties delegated by the Attorney General but not when the IJ carries out duties conferred by the INA.(Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales, 2/1/06)
CA2 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Timeliness of Asylum Application
The court found that it had jurisdiction to review whether any rational trier of fact would be compelled to conclude that Petitioner provided clear and convincing evidence that he timely filed his asylum application. (Liu v. Gonzales, 1/30/06)
CA8 Finds Agency Erred by Not Placing Burden on Gov’t in Asylum Termination
The court found that the IJ and BIA erred in placing the burden on Petitioner to prove her asylum eligibility anew. The court held that the regulation requires the government to prove fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.(Ntangsi v. Gonzales, 1/30/06)
EOIR Requests Comments on Information Collection for Form 29
EOIR revises information collection regarding Form 29, Notice of Appeal to the BIA from a Decision of a USCIS Officer. Comments due 3/31/06. (71 FR 4935, 1/30/06)
DHS Further Expands Expedited Removal
DHS Secretary Chertoff announces that expedited removal is being expanded to include those who have spent 14 days or less in the U.S. and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border with Canada or Mexico or arrive by sea and are apprehended within 100 miles of a coastal border area.
CA1 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen in Chinese Family Planning Case
The court held that the BIA properly denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen where the motion did not include new evidence and where Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the Lozada requirements. (Zeng v. Gonzales, 1/27/06)
CA2 Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Hardship Determination for Cancellation
Joining several other circuits, the court held that INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i) barred it from reviewing the purely discretionary determination of whether a person demonstrated hardship to merit cancellation of removal. (De La Vega v. Gonzales, 1/27/06)
BIA on Inadmissibility After Reentry Post-Removal
The BIA holds that a person who enters without admission after removal is inadmissible even if AG granted permission to reapply for admission prior to reentering unlawfully. Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Finds IJ Abused His Discretion in Denying Asylum in Forced Sterilization Case
The court held that the IJ abused his discretion by not considering the totality of the circumstances, relying instead on findings that part of Petitioner’s story was false and that he had used a smuggler. (Huang v. INS, 1/25/06)
CA7 Reviews Petition for Review Filed Beyond 30-Day Deadline
Relying on REAL ID §106(c), CA7 held that, where Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition was pending in district court on 5/11/05, it could review the BIA’s 1997 decision even though the petition for review was not filed within the 30-day deadline. (Medellin-Reyes v. Gonzales, 1/24/06)
CA7 Overturns Adverse Credibility Finding of Albanian Asylum Applicant
The court held that the IJ erred in finding Petitioner’s testimony was implausible, inconsistent with a DOS country profile and inconsistent with other evidence.(Shtaro v. Gonzales, 1/24/06)
BIA Says Victim of Sexual Abuse Under 18 Years Old is a Minor
The BIA held that a victim of sexual abuse under the age of 18 is a minor for purposes of determining whether an alien has been convicted of sexual abuse of a minor within the meaning of the INA. Matter of V-F-D, 23 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2005)
CA6 Heightens the Prejudice Showing Required to Prevail on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims Based on Prior Counsel’s Failure to Seek Judicial
The court held that “the lost opportunity to appeal an adverse decision in a removal proceeding, because of ineffective assistance of counsel, cannot form the basis of a due process claim unless the appeal itself would have succeeded.” (Sako v. Gonzales, 1/20/06)
CA2 Discusses One-Year Asylum Deadline and “Last Arrival"
The court found Petitioner's asylum application untimely and concluded that the term "last arrival in the United States" should not include return on parole after a brief trip abroad. (Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 1/18/06)
CA2 Upholds Adverse Credibility, Concedes Other Panel Might Have Found Otherwise
In a Chinese family planning case, the court held that the IJ’s implausibility finding was supported by substantial evidence, but noted that other panels could have decided differently. (Chen v. Gonzales, 1/12/06)
CA5 Says It Can Review Legal and Constitutional Challenges to Orders Underlying Reinstatement Orders
CA5 found INA §242(a)(2)(D) covers the bar to review of a prior order in INA §241(a)(5) and thus permits review of legal and constitutional claims. But, the court dismissed the case because Petitioner failed to appeal the order in the prior proceedings. (Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 1/12/06)
CA5 Joins Second and Fourth Circuits in Holding that Persons With Pre-IIRIRA Jury Convictions Are Not Eligible for §212(c)
Adopting the Second Circuit’s rationale in Rankine v. Reno, the court held that IIRIRA’s repeal of relief under former §212(c) does not have impermissible retroactive effect on people with pre-IIRIRA jury trial convictions. (Hernandez-Castillo v. Gonzales, 1/12/06)