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
CA10 Says §245(i) Trumps §212(a)(9)(C)(I)
The court held that Congress, in enacting the LIFE Act, intended people to adjust status under INA §245(i) even if they are subject to the permanent bar. (Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 10/18/05)
CA2 Says Airport Interviews Must Be Viewed with Caution
In rejecting the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, the court found that airport interviews may be perceived by asylum-seekers as coercive or threatening and that the BIA must recognize that applicants may not be entirely forthcoming. (Latifi v. Gonzales, 10/17/05)
EOIR Responses to AILA's Liaison Questions (10/17/05)
Liaison issues addressed with EOIR included such topics as asylum clock issues, the new biometrics and security check process, Succar adjustments, discovery, bond appeals, video conferencing, REAL ID, selection of IJs, clerical errors, and issues relating to children.
CA10 Finds No Past Persecution and Says Internal Relocation within Indonesia is Reasonable
The Court found that two minor incidents eight years apart did not amount to past persecution. The Court also upheld the IJ’s finding that internal relocation to Christian cities or districts was possible within Indonesia. (Tulengkey v. Gonzales, 10/13/05)
CA11 Address Citizenship Issues
CA11 held that citizenship is not conferred until the oath is taken; and assuming equitable estoppel can be asserted against the INS, its failure to rule on Petitioner’s naturalization application within 120 days did not rise to the level of affirmative misconduct. (Tovar-Alvarez, 10/13/05)
CA2 Finds Adverse Credibility Fatally Undercuts CAT Claim
The court upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and found that it was reasonable for the IJ to conclude that Petitioner’s lack of credibility fatally undermined her claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT. (Yang v. Gonzales, 10/11/05)
CA8 Finds Asylum Applicants Failed to Prove the Motive of their Persecutors
CA8 found Petitioners did not establish that the harm from government soldiers was “on account of” an imputed political opinion, noting that one could infer that the soldiers beat Petitioners for their refusal to cooperate in the search for an army deserter. (Gomez v. Gonzales, 10/10/05)
CA2 Asks BIA to Consider Tolling of Voluntary Departure Bar
The court remanded and directed the BIA to decide whether Congress intended to permit courts, in their equitable discretion, to grant exceptions to the 10-year bar to adjustment of status for overstaying a voluntary departure order. (Zmijewska v. Gonzales, 10/6/05)
CA11 Eleventh Circuit Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Whether Petitioner Met an Exception to the One Year Asylum Deadline
Agreeing with CA7’s decision in Vasile v. Ashcroft, the court found the timeliness of an asylum application is not a legal or constitutional question which new INA §242(a)(2)(D) authorizes it to review. (Botero v. U.S. Attorney General, 10/6/05)
ICE Issues Memo on Prosecutorial Discretion to Dismiss Adjustment Cases
A 10/6/05 memo from William Howard, ICE Principal Legal Advisor, outlining procedures by which ICE Chief Counsel may join or file a motion to dismiss proceedings without prejudice when it determines that adjustment applications at EOIR would be appropriate for USCIS approval.
CA3 Finds BIA’s Rationale for Denying Asylum to Tanzanian Boy Scout Deficient
The court found that the BIA misinterpreted Petitioner’s evidence about street children and gave unwarranted weight to the fact that his parents were not persecuted. (Lusingo v. Gonzales, 8/19/05)
CA9 Strikes Down Regulation Barring Parolees Who Are “Arriving Aliens” From Adjusting While In Removal Proceedings
Adopting the rationale of CA1 in Succar v. Ashcroft, the court held 8 CFR §1245.1(c)(8) invalid because it directly conflicts with INA §245(a) and “creates absurd result when viewed in light of the larger statutory scheme.” (Bona v. Gonzales, 9/30/05)
CA7 Comments on Role of IJ in Overturning Adverse Credibility Determination
CA7, noting that an IJ is not merely a fact finder and adjudicator, but also has an obligation to establish the record, found that all five reasons cited by the IJ for finding Petitioner not credible were unsupported by substantial evidence. (Tabaku v. Gonzales, 9/29/05)
CA8 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review One-Year Filing Deadline for Asylum Application
The Court found that the statutory language plainly excludes jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determinations that Petitioner’s application was not filed within one year and that he failed to meet the changed or extraordinary circumstances exception. (Al-Jojo v. Gonzales, 9/27/05)
CA11 Says it Has Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial
CA11 found the discretionary bar to judicial review at INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not apply “[b]ecause denials of motions to continue are not statutorily-proscribed discretionary acts ‘specified under this subsection’ to the Attorney General.” (Zafar et al. v. US Attorney General, 9/27/05).
CA9 Upholds Regulation Preventing Arriving Aliens from Renewing AOS Applications in Removal Proceedings
The court found that the regulation, which bars arriving aliens from renewing a previously denied adjustment application in removal proceedings only, was not inconsistent with INA §245(a). (Jia-Jin Jiang v. Gonzales, 9/23/05)
CA2 Rejects Adverse Credibility in Chinese Asylum Claim
The court found that Petitioner’s testimony about his wife’s forced abortion was not, as the IJ claimed, “scant of details,” and that the IJ’s finding that Petitioner’s documents were fabricated was not supported by the evidence. (Chen v. Gonzales, 9/23/05)
CA5 Finds REAL ID Act Eliminates Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
The court withdrew and amended its prior decision, finding that habeas appeals pending in circuit court on REAL ID’s effective date are properly converted into petitions for review despite Congress’ silence on this issue. (Rosales v. BICE, 9/21/05)
CA7 Finds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination Was Supported by Substantial Evidence
The Court found that the inconsistencies and implausibilities in Petitioner’s story, pointed out by the IJ, went to the heart of the claim and were sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding. (Hussain v. Gonzales, 9/20/05)
CA9 Critical of Own Precedent Decisions & Says REAL ID Act Will Help Clarify Matters in Future Asylum Cases
CA9 held that Petitioner’s testimony was not inconsistent, implausibleor evasive. It expressed concern over its rules that obscure clear standards and stated its relief that the REAL ID Act would clarify the grounds for an adverse credibility determination. (Jibril v. Gonzales, 9/19/05)
CA7 Says Ethnic Chinese Indonesian With Permanent Residency in Singapore Is Firmly Resettled
Stating that the most important issue in firm resettlement is whether the stopover country made an offer of permanent residency, the court found that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum since Singapore offered permanent residency. (Firmansjah v. Gonzales, 9/16/05)
CA1 Finds No Well-Founded Fear for Chinese Asylum Applicant
The court found that Petitioner failed to exhaust his claim of past persecution and could not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because he admitted that he could return to China without fear. (Xu v. Gonzales, 9/16/05)
CA1 Affirms Habeas Jurisdiction Over Detention Challenges
Based on plain language and legislative history, the court held that the jurisdiction-stripping and transfer provisions of the REAL ID Act did not apply to Petitioner’s habeas petition challenging his continued detention. (Hernandez v. Gonzales, 9/16/05)
CA6 Upholds IJ’s Asylum Denial Due to Use of Fraudulent Article and IJ’s Finding that Application Was “Frivolous”
The Court held that Petitioner’s submission of the fraudulent newspaper article in support of a key element in his asylum claim was sufficient support for the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. (Selami v. Gonzales, 9/16/05)
CA7 Holds BIA’s “Very Significant Mistake” As Grounds to Overrule Credibility Determination
The Court overturned the credibility determination, finding that the BIA’s“very significant mistake” that applicant was from eastern, not southern, Uganda, suggested that it was not aware of the most basic facts of the case. (Ssali v. Gonzales, 9/14/05)