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
CA9 Reaffirms Reliance Requirement in Retroactivity Analysis
To establish impermissible retroactive effect, the court held that a petitioner must demonstrate that the underlying conduct would have been different based on reliance on existing immigration laws. Two circuits have disagreed. (Kelava v. Gonzales, 1/12/06).
Letter from AILA to Attorney General Gonzales Regarding Due Process in Removal Proceedings
Letter from AILA President Deborah Notkin to Attorney General Gonzales outlining AILA concerns about due process in removal proceedings and BIA Affirmance Without Order review, and commending the AG for his new program to review the conduct of removal proceedings and BIA review proceedings.
AILA Welcoming the Attorney General's Review of Immigration Judges and BIA Processes
AILA strongly commends Attorney General Gonzales’ announcement that he is launching a comprehensive review of the immigration courts, including the Board of Immigration Review.
Attorney General Issues Memorandum to BIA
In a January 9, 2006, memorandum to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directs the development of a comprehensive review of the immigration courts and the BIA, including the quality of work and the manner in which it is performed.
Attorney General Issues Memorandum to Immigration Judges
In a January 9, 2006, memorandum to Immigration Judges, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directs the development of a comprehensive review of the immigration courts, including the quality of work and the manner in which it is performed.
CA5 Holds No Right to Procedural Protections in a Motion to Reopen Hearing
The court held that INA §240 governs removal proceedings, not motion to reopen proceedings, and that Petitioner has no constitutionally protected liberty interest in a discretionary motion to reopen. (Altamirano v. Gonzales, 1/5/06)
CA2 Remands Withholding, Finds IJ Ignored Testimony
The court remanded Petitioner's claim of withholding from the Republic of Georgia because the IJ failed to consider the harm Petitioner suffered. (Ivanishvili v. Gonzales, 1/5/06)
CA2 Says Transporting Women to Forced Abortions Is Assisting in Persecution
The court found that the IJ correctly concluded that Petitioner’s actions in transporting captive women to undergo forced abortions was assistance in persecution and therefore, a bar to asylum. (Xie v. Gonzales, 1/5/06)
CA5 Upholds Validity of NTA Signed By DHS Officer Who Is Not Authorized to Issue NTAs
The court upheld the government’s interpretation of 8 CFR §239.1 allowing unauthorized officers to initially sign and serve an NTA so long as the officer later obtains approval from an authorized official. (Ali v. Gonzales, 1/4/06)
CA4 Finds General Challenge to Denial of Adjustment is Not Reviewable
Although it acknowledged that it would have jurisdiction to review a legal or constitutional challenge to the denial of an adjustment application, the court found that Petitioner’s petition failed to present such a challenge. (Higuit v. Gonzales, 1/3/06)
CA3 Notes that BIA Decision Ordering Remand Is Not Final
In a footnote, the court said that the BIA’s first order affirming removability but remanding to allow Petitioner to pursue relief was not final for purposes of judicial review until remand proceedings were completed and the BIA ruled on the second appeal. (Singh v. Gonzales, 1/3/06)
CA9 Finds Likelihood that USC Daughter Would Be Subjected to FGM Requires Remand of Parents’ Claim
The en banc court found that the probability a US citizen child would be subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) greatly exceeded the threshold required for asylum eligibility, but remanded re whether her parents could derivatively qualify for asylum. (Abebe v. Gonzales, 12/30/05)
CA9 Concludes Record of Conviction for “Grand Theft” Under California Law is Aggravated Felony
Though the CA law under which Petitioner was convicted for “Grand Theft” proscribed conduct broader than for “theft” for an INA aggravated felony, the record showed a guilty plea to all of the elements of the generic aggravated felony “theft” offense. (Martinez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 12/29/04)
CA3 Upholds Asylum Denial Based on Lack of Corroboration
The court found that the IJ clearly identified facts for which it was reasonable to expect corroboration and noted that under the REAL ID Act it could not reverse the IJ’s determination unless it concluded that corroborating evidence was unavailable. (Chen v. Gonzales, 12/29/05)
CA7 Finds Error in Allowing Government’s Document Expert to Testify in Albanian Asylum Case
The court, in finding that the government’s document expert should not have been permitted to testify, held that “junk science” has no place in administrative proceedings.(Pasha v. Gonzales, 12/29/05)
CA2 Uses Airport Interview to Uphold Negative Credibility Finding
The court noted that it exercises caution when reviewing airport statements, but found no indication that Petitioner’s statement was coerced, truncated, or mistranslated. (Guan v. Gonzales, 12/23/05)
Senate Passes Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act
On 12/22/05, the Senate amended and passed the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act (UACPA) of 2005 (S. 119), sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). A House companion bill (H.R. 1172) has not yet been acted upon.
CA1 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review One-Year Asylum Deadline
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide whether Petitioner timely filed for asylum because the INA bars judicial review and the REAL ID Act only restored jurisdiction for constitutional claims and questions of law. (Mehilli v. Gonzales, 12/22/05)
Permanent Injunction to Require Issuance of Documentation
A California District Court entered a permanent injunction requiring the DHS to issue documentation of lawful status within a set time period after a class member appears at their local USCIS office and requests documentation. (Santillan v. Gonzales, 12/22/05)
CA3 Decides When a Vacated Conviction Remains a Conviction
The court concluded that the BIA may reasonably draw a distinction between convictions vacated based on “substantive” or “rehabilitative” grounds, and established a categorical test to guide this determination. (Pinho v. Gonzales, 12/20/05)
CA8 Lacks Jurisdiction Over Asylum Denial Based on One-Year Asylum Deadline
The court said it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of a hardship waiver application. The court also found that “extraordinary circumstances” did not exist to excuse an asylum application filed late. (Ignatova v. Gonzales, 12/19/05)
House Passes Harsh, Enforcement-Only Bill That Would Criminalize 11 Million Immigrants
On 12/16/05, the House completed consideration of Rep. Sensenbrenner’s (R-WI) enforcement-only bill, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437). AILA believes this bill is disappointing and disastrous for both immigrants and U.S. citizens.
Top 10 “Poison Pills” in H.R. 4437
AILA’s list of the top 10 “Poison Pills” in the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (HR 4437), as amended and passed by the House on 12/16/05.
Section-by-Section Summary of HR 4437, as Amended and Passed by the House
AILA’s section-by-section summary of the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (HR 4437), as amended and passed by the House on 12/16/05. This egregious, enforcement-only legislation passed the House by a vote of 239-182.
Congressional Budget Office’s Cost Estimate for H.R. 4437
The Congressional Budget Office has issued a cost estimate for the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437), as ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee on 12/8/05.