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 Finds Due Process Violation in Proceeding After Withdrawal of Counsel
The Ninth Circuit found that the IJ violated due process by permitting counsel to withdraw without advising petitioner of his right to counsel or asking for a waiver of the right, and continuing the hearing for only 2 hours after the withdrawal. (Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 4/15/04)
CA9 Construes Motion for Stay of Removal as Motion to Stay Voluntary Departure Period
CA9 held that a motion for a stay of removal filed during the pendency of a petition for review will be construed to include a motion to stay voluntary departure provided the motion for a stay of removal is filed prior to the expiration of the VD period. (Desta v. Ashcroft, 4/14/04)
CA7 Finds Lack of Jurisdiction under INA Section 242(a)(2)(C)
Finding that it lacked jurisdiction under INA § 242(a)(2)(C), CA7 held that the denial of discretionary relief presented no substantial constitutional claim which would override the statutory bar to jurisdiction.(Dave v. Ashcroft, 4/14/04)
CA9 Affirms Denial of Asylum and Withholding Based on Terrorist/National Security Grounds
CA9 found lack of jurisdiction to review an IJ determination that a petitioner who, the judge concluded, had engaged in terrorist activity, and held that substantial evidence supported a finding of ineligibility for withholding as a likely danger to security. (Bellout v. Ashcroft, 4/12/04)
CA9 Finds It Has Jurisdiction to Review Discretionary Denial of Motion to Reopen
The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review a motion to reopen by a respondent granted voluntary departure who sought to resurrect an abandoned adjustment application based on his relationship to a USC stepfather. (Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 4/7/04)
CA9 Affirms Denial of Untimely Motion to Reopen, But Remands for CAT Claim
CA9 held that a change in asylum law does not constitute "changed circumstances" for an untimely motion to reopen, but remanded on holding that torture for CAT purposes may occur while in the custody or physical control of public officials or private individuals. (Azanor v. Ashcroft, 4/1/04)
CA2 Says AEDPA §440(d) May Have Impermissible Retroactive Effect
The court held that AEDPA §440(d) may have an impermissible retroactive effect if applied to persons with pre-AEDPA aggravated felony jury trial convictions, and remanded to determine whether individual §212(c) reliance is required (Restrepo v. McElroy, 4/1/04)
Motion to Return Petitioner to the U.S. and Restore Status Nunc Pro Tunc
Sample motion to return Petitioner to the United States and restore his status nunc pro tunc, where his removal from the U.S. was in violation of a court ordered stay. (April 2004) (Miscellaneous Motion)
Motion to Enforce Court Order
Sample motion to enforce court order to restore Petitioner’s status nunc pro tunc and return Petitioner to the United States. (April 2004) (Miscellaneous Motion)
DHS Guidance on Length of Custody Before Determination to Charge and Other Detention Issue
A 3/30/04 memo from Asa Hutchinson, Border and Transportation Undersecretary, providing guidance on length of custody before a determination to charge, as well NTA service, post-order custody reviews and other related issues.
CA4 Holds Recission Proceedings Proper More Than Five Years After Adjustment
The Court allowed a deportability charge 5 years after LPR status was granted (on a ground that would have supported rescission if charged within five years of the grant) where the same grounds that justify deportation would also support rescission of status. (Asika v. Ashcroft, 3/29/04)
CA4 Upholds BIA's AWO Procedure
The Court upheld the affirmance without opinion procedure as a mere regulatory change that does not attach new legal consequences to past events. (Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 3/29/04)
ICE Announces Expansion of Pilot Detention Project to Atlanta and Denver
ICE will expand its "Hartford Pilot Project" to Atlanta and Denver as part of its "Endgame" plan. The project involves the detaining of foreign nationals immediately upon Immigration Judge orders of removal at Court hearings.
CA9 Requires Notice of Hearing to Both Minor and Adult to Whom the Minor is Released
In requiring notice to the adult, CA9 reasoned that "the regulatory framework ...contemplates that no minor alien under age eighteen should be presumed responsible for understanding his rights and responsibilities ... at final immigration proceedings." (Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 3/25/04)
CA9 Concludes that California Conviction for Mayhem with a Sentence Longer than One Year is a Crime of Violence
CA9 held that the statutory definition of mayhem implies a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the process of committing the offense, and a conviction for mayhem with a sentence longer than one year is a crime of violence. (Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 3/24/04)
CA2 Upholds BIA's Affirmance Without Opinion Procedure
The court found that neither the INA nor the Constitution requires appeals to be adjudicated by a three-member panel, the procedures do not compromise review of IJ decisions, and individuals are afforded minimum due process protections. (Zhang v. Ashcroft, 3/24/04)
DHS Reports to Congress on Asylum Seeker Detentions
Section 903 of the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA) requires the Attorney General to regularly collect data on detained asylum seekers. The DHS issued reports on overall numbers, countries of origin, gender, age, and detention facilities for FY1999 through FY2002.
CA1 Upholds Chinese One-Child Policy Asylum Denial
The court affirmed the IJ’s findings of adverse credibility and that a certificate submitted by Petitioner purporting to prove a forced abortion was fraudulent. (Qin v. Ashcroft, 3/15/04)
CA9 Concludes First Lawful Admission Date Governs in Grounds of Removal
CA9 held that the first lawful admission date constitutes the relevant admission date where there may be two or more possible admission dates, for purposes of deportability under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i). (Shivaraman v. Ashcroft, 3/12/04)
BIA Says Stalking Is a Crime of Violence
The BIA held that a stalking offense in violation of Ca. Penal Code §646.9(b), which proscribes stalking when there is a TRO, injunction, or other court order in effect, is an aggravated felony crime of violence under INA §101(a)(43)(F). (Matter of Malta, 3/11/04)
CA3 Finds No Habeas Jurisdiction to Review BIA's Discretionary Denial of Asylum
Consistent with a number of its sister circuits, the court upheld the BIA's discretionary denial of asylum, finding that discretionary determinations and factual findings are not within the scope of habeas review. (Bakhtriger v. Elwood, 3/10/04)
CA10 Dismisses Petition for Failure to Establish a Substantial Constitutional Issue
The Tenth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review denials of cancellation of removal applications only where a substantial constitutional issue exists in the denial. (Alvarez-Delmuro v. Ashcroft, 3/9/04)
CBP Directive on POE Secure Detention Procedures
A 3/9/04 CBP Directive, which was reviewed on 3/1/07, establishes a national policy for temporary detention of persons by CBP in secure areas at POEs. Guidance obtained through the CBP FOIA Library and supersedes a 7/26/01 directive.
DHS Proposes Rule Implementing ‘Safe Third Country’ Agreement
DHS proposed rule that would implement the U.S./Canada “Safe Third Country” agreement which, among other things, provides for a threshold determination to be made as to which country will consider the merits of a prospective asylee’s claims. (69 FR 10620, 3/8/04)
EOIR Responses to AILA's Liaison Questions (3/4/04)
Liaison issues addressed with EOIR included the publication of decisions, I-551 stamps, impact of pending petitions, status of the St. Cyr regulation, use of technology in courtrooms, e-filing, faxing of motions, scheduling of hearings, and periods of voluntary departure granted by the BIA.