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
CA5 Finds No Due Process Violation Where Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Results in Denial of Discretionary Relief
Reviewing the BIA’s decision affirming the denial of a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, CA5 held that petitioner’s motion did not allege a due process violation because he was ultimately seeking discretionary relief from removal. (Assaad v. Ashcroft, 7/19/04)
ICE/EOIR Notice on Countries to Which Foreign Nationals May be Removed
DHS and DOJ rule specifing that acceptance by a country is not required for removal to that country, and that "country" does not require the existence or functionality of a government. Also addressed is the countries to which one may be removed. (69 FR 42901, 7/1/04)
CA2 Rejects “No Liberty or Property Interest in Discretionary Relief” Argument
The court rejected the government’s position that noncitizens have no protected liberty or property interest in obtaining discretionary relief, explaining that the argument erroneously relies on a property rights analysis from §1983 cases. (U.S. v. Copeland, 7/16/04)
CA8 Finds Reinstatement Has Impermissible Retroactive Effect (Updated 11/8/04)
CA8 held a person who filed a labor certification application before 4/1/97 could not be subject to reinstatement of removal, reasoning that it would have impermissible retroactive effect because it would deprive him of his right to defend against deportation.(Lopez-Flores v. DHS, 10/28/2004)
Current and Defunct Miscellaneous Codes Used By USCIS
A list of current and defunct codes used by USCIS in contexts other than the green card.
CA8 Denies Motions for Stay of Voluntary Departure Filed After the Expiration of Such Period
CA8 held it lacked authority to stay the voluntary departure period where the request for a stay of the voluntary departure period was filed after expiration of the period. (Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft, 7/8/04); (Molathwa v. Ashcroft, 7/8/04)
CA3 Finds Controlled Substance Conviction Bars Judicial Review
The court held that the fact that Petitioner was charged with and found removable for a controlled substance conviction barred judicial review under INA §242(a)(2)(C), even though he did not challenge that finding in the petition for review. (Douglas v. Ashcroft, 7/8/04)
CA10 Articulates Standard and Documentation Requirements for Stay of Removal Pending Judicial Review
CA10 stated that requests to stay removal pending judicial review must be presented in a separate motion and establish both that the court has jurisdiction over the appeal and that a stay is warranted under the appropriate standard. (Lim v. Ashcroft, 7/9/04 & Singh v. Ashcroft, 7/7/04)
CA8 Construes Motion for Stay of Removal to Include Motion to Stay Voluntary Departure Period
CA8 stayed voluntary departure on the showing that it was warranted under the same standards for stay of removal requests. It also deemed a motion to stay removal filed prior to the expiration of the voluntary departure period to include a motion to stay that period.(Rife v. Ashcroft, 7/7/04)
ORR Announces Funding Opportunity for Unaccompanied Alien Children
HHS’s ORR published notice of a funding opportunity to provide shelter care services to unaccompanied alien children, including physical care and maintenance, medical/mental health care, dental services and other social services. The deadline is 8/6/04. (69 FR 40950, 7/7/04)
ICE Interim Use of Force Policy (7/7/04)
ICE interim use of force policy, dated 7/7/04, intended to create a comprehensive policy to unify operational elements in the critical area of firearms and the related disciplines. Policy includes general guidelines, reporting requirements, intermediate force devices, and marine enforcement.
CA9 Amends Rationale in Prior Decision Barring Relief Where Motion to Reopen was Filed After Voluntary Departure Period Expired
CA9 amended its rationale in a prior decision which barred relief for an individual who overstayed voluntary departure where a motion to reopen was filed after the voluntary departure period, but before the end of the 90-day period for an MTR. (DeMartinez v. Ashcroft, Amended 7/2/04)
CA6 Affirms Habeas Jurisdiction to Review Reinstatement of Prior Removal Order
Affirming habeas corpus jurisdiction to review both a reinstatement order and the prior removal order, CA6 concluded that petitioner’s drug conviction was an aggravated felony because it was punishable under the Controlled Substances Act. (Garcia-Echaverria v. United States, 7/1/2004)
CA2 Excuses Exhaustion Requirement to Remedy Unlawful Deportation
The court excused Petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies where the basis of the removal order was nullified and manifest injustice would occur if the court failed to consider his meritorious claim. (Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 7/1/04)
CA2 Upholds BIA's AWO Procedure
With very little discussion, the court held that the BIA’s affirmance without opinion (AWO) procedure does not constitute an abuse of discretion. (Xusheng Shi v. BIA, 7/1/04)
Sign-On Letter Advocating Reforms for Children Seeking Asylum
A letter from AILA and other organizations calling on DHS, ORR, and EOIR to take all steps necessary to ensure the well-being of vulnerable children who seek refuge in the U.S. and highlighting the story of Edgar Chocoy, a child asylum-seeker who was murdered after his deportation from the U.S.
AILA’s Statement on Recent Supreme Court Decisions Supporting Due Process
AILA’s statement on the Supreme Court’s 6/28/04 decisions in which the Court held that U.S. citizens subjected to indefinite detention as enemy combatants and noncitizens jailed at the Guantanamo Naval Base must be permitted to challenge their detention in court.
Supreme Court Finds Foreign Nationals Held at Guantanamo Entitled to Judicial Review of Custody
The Supreme Court held that U.S. Courts have jurisdiction to review the legality of the custody of foreign nationals detained as "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. (Rasul v. Bush, 6/28/04)
Supreme Court Denies Padilla Case on Jurisdictional Grounds
The Court held that the petition should have been filed in the jurisdiction where Padilla was held. The Court did not reach the merits; however, it held in Hamdi and Rasul, that U.S. citizens held as "enemy combatants" are entitled to review. (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 6/28/04)
Supreme Court Finds Enemy Combatant Entitled to Opportunity to Contest Detention
The Court held that a US citizen “enemy combatant” is entitled to notice of the factual basis for this classification and to contest the claim before a neutral decisionmaker. (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 6/28/04)
CA3 Finds IJ Erroneously Disregarded Unauthenticated Evidence
The court reversed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination which was based, in part, on the IJ’s failure to consider documentary evidence that did not meet the authentication requirements in 8 CFR §287.6. (Gui Cun Liu v. Ashcroft, 6/28/04)
CA3 Extends St. Cyr to Pre-IIRIRA Trial Convictions
Holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in St. Cyr is not limited to guilty pleas, the court found that individuals who relied on the availability of §212(c) pre-IIRIRA to turn down a plea agreement and sustain a trial may apply for §212(c) relief. (Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 6/28/04)
CA9 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Fraud Waiver
Court finds a review of the decision affirming statutory ineligibility for an INA § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver would be futile because of the alternative holding that even if the petitioner were eligible, he wouldn't merit a favorable exercise of discretion. (San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 6/23/04)
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004
AILA’s section-by-section analysis of the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 (CLRA) (S. 2528/H.R. 4591), introduced on 6/16/04 by Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Berman (D-CA).
CA5 Holds Oklahoma Sexual Battery Conviction is a Crime of Violence
Reviewing the elements of the relevant statutory provision, CA5 held that a conviction for sexual battery under Oklahoma law constituted a "crime of violence" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and thus an aggravated felony as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(F). (Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 6/21/04)