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 Holds that Filing a Timely Motion to Reopen and Stay Request Tolls the Voluntary Departure Period
Where a person files a motion to reopen and request for a stay of removal or voluntary departure prior to the expiration of the voluntary departure period, the court held that the departure period is tolled while the BIA is adjudicating the motion. (Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 5/17/05)
CA1 Upholds Adverse Credibility Where Applicant Omitted Physical Abuse
The court found that the omission of two significant incidents of abuse and torture by a Palestinian from Lebanon in his asylum application and testimony to an asylum officer supported the IJ’s finding that he was not credible. (Sharari v. Gonzales, 5/16/05)
CA9 Reverses CAT Denial and Reiterates Test for Determining “Acquiescence” of a Public Official
CA9 rejected the Matter of S-V- test of acquiescence and reiterated that the test in CA9 is that Petitioners “need only prove that the government is aware of the third party’s tortuous conduct and does nothing to intervene to prevent it” for CAT claims. (Ochoa v. Gonzales, 5/16/05)
CA11 Finds It Has Jurisdiction to Review an Asylum Denial of a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) Applicant
The Court raised the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte and found that it had jurisdiction to review the asylum denial of a VWP applicant, even though BIA had not issued a removal order. The Court, however, upheld the asylum denial. (Nreka v. Gonzalez, 5/16/05)
CA3 Overturns Negative Credibility Finding Against Chinese Pediatrician Who Exposed Infanticide
The court held that the IJ’s negative credibility finding was based on speculation and conjecture surrounding evidence including Petitioner’s distinction between infanticide and abortion, her contacts with a reporter, and the facts surrounding her escape. (Cao v. Gonzales, 5/12/05)
CA9 Says Affirmative Misrepresentations of Immigration Consequences Can Constitute IAC
The court held that affirmative misrepresentations regarding immigration consequences of a conviction could constitute the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim. (U.S. v. Kwan, 5/12/05)
Text of the Public Law 109-13 (REAL ID Act)
Text of Public Law 109-13, ‘‘Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005’’ (H.R. 1268) which includes the REAL ID Act.
CA8 Upholds Negative Credibility Determination in Asylum Claim & Finds Willful Misrepresentation Sufficient to Deny AOS
CA8 upheld an adverse credibility finding for a Nigerian asylum applicant claiming religious persecution, as well as the determination that she was ineligible for adjustment of status because statements made in her asylum claim were willful misrepresentations. (Falaja v. Gonzalez, 5/11/05)
CA8 Upholds IJ’s Withholding and CAT Denial Based on Lack of Corroboration Applying Three-Part Test
The IJ denied Petitioner’s claims, finding that he was credible, but he had not reasonably explained his failure to obtain corroborating evidence. The Court upheld the decision finding that IJ had met the three-part test criteria. (Madjakpor v. Gonzales, 5/11/05)
U.S. Attorney Office Remand Recommendations
A 5/10/05 unsigned memo from Appellate Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, to U.S. Attorney Offices outlining process for seeking ICE concurrence on recommendations to remand federal court immigration cases back to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
BIA Reinstates Same Voluntary Departure Time Granted By IJ at End of Removal Proceedings
The BIA held that, absent reasons to do otherwise, where a respondent's asylum and withholding of removal appeals have been denied, it will reinstate the same voluntary departure period granted by the IJ at the end of removal proceedings. (Matter of A-M-, 5/9/05)
AILA/TSC Liaison Minutes (5/9/05)
Discussions with Texas Service Center included such topics as I-485 approval notices, fingerprinting, preservation of priority dates, EB-5 processing, F-1 documentation, error on advance parole documents, handling of applications for persons in proceedings, and more.
CA6 Reverses BIA’s Finding that Albanian Political Activists Failed to Establish Past Persecution
CA6 found that the determination that Petitioners did not suffer persecution was not supported by substantial evidence, finding that the harm, including physical abuse, verbal harassment, home searches, and death threats compelled a finding of past persecution. (Gilaj v. Gonzalez, 5/9/05)
CA9 Remands VAWA Cancellation Case
The court found that the IJ’s credibility determination was skewed by his own stereotypical assumptions about domestic violence and further found that the IJ’s refusal to allow expert testimony to address those credibility concerns violated due process. (Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 5/6/05)
Alert: Restrictions on Judicial Review Imminent
The REAL ID Act, which seems likely to pass through Congress and the White House by next, contains a new set of severe limitations on judicial review. Find out how these new provisions will affect you and your clients.
CA3 Overturns BIA by Applying Mixed Motive Analysis
The court rejected the argument that the child had not met his burden of proof where the motivation for his arrest was based in part on a legitimate law enforcement purpose, noting that persecution need not be motivated solely by a protected ground. (Singh v. Gonzales, 5/5/05)
Summary and Analysis of the REAL ID Act of 2005
AILA’s summary and analysis of selected immigration provisions of the REAL ID Act (H.R. 418) contained in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Package (H.R. 1268) revised to reflect the information provided in the 5/3/05 conference report.
BIA on Eligibility for Custody Redetermination
The BIA held that certain individuals screened for expedited removal and then placed in removal proceedings following a positive credible fear ruling are eligible for a custody redetermination hearing before an IJ. (Matter of X-K-, 5/4/05)
CA9 Claims Jurisdiction to Examine Circumstances Causing Late Filing of Asylum Claim When IJ & BIA Fail to Do So
CA9 found that the IJ and BIA had failed to address Petitioner’s argument that his failure to file within one year was due to extraordinary circumstances remanded. It also overturned the IJ’s ruling that Petitioner was targeted for purely personal reasons. (Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 5/4/05)
CA9 Finds BIA Has Authority to Extend Notice of Appeal Deadline in “Rare Circumstances”
Where Petitioner made a prima facie showing that overnight mail carrier failed to timely deliver the notice of appeal, the court found that the BIA abused its discretion when it failed to consider the “rare circumstances” exception. (Oh v. Gonzales, 5/2/05)
CA10 Declines to Adopt Definition of a Particular Social Group in Rejecting Asylum Claim of Honduran Debtors
CA10 held that regardless of which “particular social group” definition was applied, being small businessmen whose businesses were ruined by Hurricane Mitch, and who are indebted to private creditors, failed to meet any of the circuit courts’ tests. (Cruz-Funez v. Gonzales, 5/2/05)
CA4 Finds Insertion of an IUD and a Fine Not Persecution
CA4 found insertion of an IUD did not constitute persecution where Petitioner never had the IUD removed and had a child unharmed in China despite nonpayment of a substantial fine. It also found that the fine imposed did not constitute a threat to life or liberty. (Li v. Gonzales, 5/2/05)
State Bar of Texas Meeting Minutes (04/29/05)
Minutes from the 4/29/05 meeting of the State Bar of Texas Committee on Laws Relating to Immigration & Nationality.
CA3 Finds Child of Parents Subject to Coercive Population Controls Is Not Eligible for Asylum
The court concluded that Petitioner could not establish eligibility for asylum by virtue of the harm his parents suffered as a result of China’s coercive population control methods because his interest in the birth of the additional child is remote. (Wang v. Gonzales, 4/27/05)
CA1 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Hardship Waiver
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not preclude review of a hardship waiver, because the “decision or action” -- that Petitioner was ineligible because she failed to prove she married in good faith -- is not discretionary. (Cho v. Gonzales, 4/19/05)