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
DOJ Report: The BIA Pro Bono Project Is Successful
Based upon available EOIR data and an opinion survey completed by BIA Board members and attorneys, and by nongovernmental agencies, the project has been very successful in meeting its original goals. The report concludes with suggestions to continuously review and evaluate the BIA Pro Bono Project.
CA6 Finds that IJ Improperly Considered Unproven Sex Allegations and Reverses Adjustment Denial
The court held that the IJ's consideration of the unproven allegations of sexual misconduct contravened the BIA's decision in Matter of Catalina Arreguin de Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38 (1995) and necessarily prejudiced petitioner. (Billeke-Tolosa v. Ashcroft, 9/30/04)
EOIR Responses to AILA's Liaison Questions (9/30/04)
Liaison issues addressed with EOIR included local court rules, payment of fees, St. Cyr relief, publication of decisions, prima facie removability, judicial performance, video hearings, venue changes, "front desking", FOIA, impact of ICE's detention program, and EOIR's pro bono program.
BIA Upholds Denial of Adjustment for Failure to Maintain Status
The BIA found that failure to maintain status was not "for technical reasons" where an asylum application was filed while respondent was in nonimmigrant status, nonimmigrant status expired, and asylum was referred to an IJ prior to filing for adjustment of status. (Matter of L-K-, 9/30/04)
EOIR Press Release on Final Rule Implementing St. Cyr Decision
EOIR press release on the final rule establishing procedures for 212(c) applications for eligible lawful permanent residents with certain criminal convictions obtained by plea agreements prior to 4/1/97. Eligible individuals must apply for relief by filing special motions on or before 4/26/05.
CA11 Vacates Prior Decision Finding Removability Not Established in Weapons Case and Orders Rehearing En Banc
Applying the highly deferential substantial evidence standard, the court found that the BIA’s deportability finding was not unreasonable despite ambiguities in the conviction document. (Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 9/28/04)
DOJ Publishes Final Rule on 212(c) Relief
EOIR final rule with procedures for filing 212(c) relief for eligible individuals in proceedings or under final deportation/removal orders. Rule addresses criminal convictions resulting from pre-4/1/97 plea agreements reached prior to trial verdict. Rule effective 10/28/04. (69 FR 57826, 9/28/04)
CA3 Affirms Inadmissibility for Providing Material Support to Terrorists
Over dissent, the court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner was inadmissible because he provided food and shelter to individuals who he knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit terrorist acts. (Singh-Kaur v. Ashcroft, 9/23/04)
BIA Recognizes Validity of Post-Operative Transsexual Marriage
In an unpublished decision, the BIA found that the beneficiary who completed male-to-female sexual conversion surgery and married a male, is in an opposite-sex marriage for purposes of of the Defense of Marriage Act. Courtesy of Jose Monge.
CA3 Says Attempted Reckless Endangerment Is Not a CIMT
The court reasoned that the actual intent for an attempt conviction was inconsistent with acting recklessly. “A person cannot intend to commit a criminally reckless act. He or she either acts recklessly or does not.” (Knapick v. Ashcroft, 9/17/04)
CA3 Says Delaware Sexual Contact Is Not An Aggravated Felony
Employing the categorical approach, the court held that petitioner was not convicted of the aggravated felony of sexual abuse of a minor because the criminal statute at issue did not contain an element specifying the age of the victim. (Singh v. Ashcroft, 9/17/04)
EOIR Memo on Unaccompanied Minors in Proceedings
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) memo defines "unaccompanied alien child," limiting the child's age to under 18; discusses modifications of courtroom settings and appropriate courtroom procedures; and addresses specified coding for unaccompanied minors' cases.
EOIR Fact Sheet on BIA Streamlining
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Fact Sheet summarizes EOIR's assessment of the Board of Immigration Appeals' streamlining procedure with respect to backlog reduction and appeals to the Federal Circuit Courts.
CA7 Holds That Non-Compelled Departures Do Not Break Physical Presence for Cancellation Eligibility
The court held that INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar review of non-discretionary statutory eligibility requirements for discretionary relief, and that departures made without any threat of removal proceedings do not break continuous physical presence. (Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft, 9/15/04).
CA1 on Retroactive Effect of Reinstatement Provision
The court held that application of the reinstatement provisions under INA §241(a)(5) would not have impermissible retroactive effect because Petitioner was not eligible for adjustment of status before it took effect. (Lattab v. Ashcroft, 9/14/04)
CA9 Affirms Dismissal of Post-Removal Detention Habeas Petitions Filed Before the 90-Day Removal Period Expired (Updated 11/8/04)
The court held that habeas petitioners whose removal is not reasonably foreseeable cannot raise a colorable due process claim for release until the 90-day removal period has expired. (Khoutesouvan et al. v. Morones, 10/27/04)
CA11 Rejects Challenge to Matter of Roldan
The court held that a state conviction is a conviction for immigration purposes, regardless of whether it is later expunged under a state rehabilitative statute, so long as it satisfies the definition of conviction in INA § 101(a)(48)(A). (Resendiz-Alcaraz v. Ashcroft, 9/10/04)
CA7 Empowered to Stay Voluntary Departure in Permanent Rule Cases
Joining CA6, 8, and 9, CA7 held “nothing in IIRAIRA divests us of the power to grant a stay tolling the time for departure until the completion of judicial review” if a motion to stay voluntary departure is filed before the date for departure.(Lopez-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 9/9/04)
CA9 Finds Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Due Process Violations Apply Only After Proceedings Commence
The court found that prior counsel’s erroneous advice regarding eligibility for relief did not amount to a due process violation because the erroneous advice was given prior to commencement of proceedings and, thus, did not taint the hearing itself. (Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 9/8/04)
CA9 Rules Section 241(a)(5) Reinstatement Impermissible
Applying the rationale of St. Cyr to INA § 241(a)(5)’s bar to “review,” the court held that habeas review remains available to raise a due process challenge to a prior order that has been reinstated. (Arreola-Arreola v. Ashcroft, 9/8/04)
CA7 Finds IJ’s Refusal to Continue Removal Proceedings Violates INA § 245(i)
The court found that the IJ violated INA § 245(i) when he denied petitioner’s continuance in order to have his labor certification processed. (Subhan v. Ashcroft, 9/7/04)
CA9 Withdraws Armentero Decision Regarding Whom to Sue in Habeas Cases
The court granted the government’s rehearing petition, withdrew its prior published decision, and deferred submission of the case pending oral argument. (Armentero v. INS, 9/1/04)
EOIR Five Year Strategic Plan for FY2005-FY2010
EOIR strategic plan for FY2005-2010, providing a comprehensive, multi-year framework for carrying out its mission, including the following goals: timely adjudications, professional services, electronic filing, and workforce standards.
BIA Finds Charging Document In Prior Proceeding Does Not End Physical Presence
The BIA found that an alien who departed the U.S. after being served with a charging document can seek cancellation in a subsequent removal proceeding, based on a new period of continuous physical presence measured from the date of his return to the U.S. (Matter of Cisneros-Gonzalez, 9/1/04)
CA9 Addresses Whether Returning LPR is Properly Charged with Inadmissibility for Making a False USC Claim
The court ruled that the BIA’s failure to decide whether petitioner was convicted of a CIMT made it impossible to determine whether he was “seeking admission” under INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) and, therefore, whether he could be charged with inadmissibility. (Toro-Romero v. Ashcroft, 8/30/04)