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
EOIR OPPM 98-7: Management of the Institutional Hearing Program
EOIR issues OPPM 98-7: Management of the Institutional Hearing Program, which supersedes OPPM 94-7, dated July 18, 1994, and establishes the management and supervision policies of the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP).
AILA Comments on BIA Streamlining
AILA and AILF submitted comments to the proposed regulation EOIR No. 122P, AG 2177-98, 63 Federal Register 49043 (September 14, 1998). This regulation purports to streamline the review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of certain decisions.
Court Remands After Finding AEDPA §440(d) Impermissibly Retroactive
The court remanded the case to the BIA for a discretionary determination on the merits of Petitioner's application for relief under §212(c) after concluding that AEDPA §440(d) was impermissibly retroactive as applied to Petitioner. (Ranglin v. INS, 11/12/98)
EOIR Liaison Report (11/5/98)
Report from the AILA/EOIR liaison meeting which was held on November 5, 1998.
BIA on Aggravated Felonies
The BIA held that an alien convicted of an aggravated felony is subject to deportation regardless of the date of the conviction when he is placed in deportation proceedings on or after March 1, 1991, and the crime falls within the aggravated felony definition. (Matter of Lettman, 11/5/98)
BIA on In Absentia Motions to Reopen
The BIA held that where an alien did not receive oral warnings of the consequences of failing to appear and moves to reopen to apply for relief that was unavailable at the time of the hearing, the regulatory requirements under 8 CFR §§3.2(c) and 3.23(b)(3) apply. (Matter of M-S-, 10/30/98)
BIA Finds No Compelling Reasons to Grant Asylum Where Conditions Changed in Afghanistan
The BIA found that the applicant failed to establish compelling reasons for being unwilling to return to Afghanistan where he suffered beatings during a month-long detention and the disappearance and likely death of his father. (Matter of N-M-A-, 10/21/98)
INS Memo with New Detention Guidelines
A 10/7/98 memo from Michael Pearson, Executive Associate Commissioner (INS) providing instructions on the application of the new detention guidelines.
District Court Rules on Motion in Case Involving Detainee Mistreatment
The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part and dismissed in part in a case brought by asylum seekers alleging mistreatment while being detained in an Elizabeth, New Jersey immigration detention facility. (Jama v. INS, 10/1/98)
CA5 Grants Motion to Suppress
CA5 finds that a Border Patrol stop violated the Fourth Amendment, and grants the motion to suppress. (U.S. v. Moreno-Chaparro, 9/30/98)
INS Rule on Suspension and Cancellation of Removal
INS rule eliminating the conditional grant process at 8 CFR 240.21, and establishing a permanent procedure for processing suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal cases in accordance with NACARA and IIRAIRA provisions. (63 FR 52134, 9/30/98)
EOIR Memo on Suspension/Cancellation Cap Procedures
Memo from Chief Immigration Judge Creppy, dated September 29, 1998, on suspension/cancellation cap - procedures on handling applications for suspension/cancellation based on the interim regulation.
BIA Final Rule Expanding Board to 18 Permanent Members
EOIR final rule provides for an expansion of the Board of Immigration Appeals to an 18-member permanent Board, due to the Board's increasing caseload. Rule is effective 9/28/98. (63 FR 51518, 9/28/98)
AILA-INS General Counsel Liaison (9/25/98)
Minutes from the September 25, 1998, AILA-INS General Counsel meeting. Issues covered include 245(i), EAD extensions, Matter of Izuumi policy, unlawful presence accrual, removal and conditional grants.
BIA Finds No Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The BIA held that where counsel's insistence on corroborating evidence discouraged the respondents from seeking asylum, but was reasonable in light of case precedent, there is no showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Matter of B-B-, 9/24/98)
CA2 Finds Habeas Jurisdiction for Aliens “in Custody”
The court held that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 USC §2241 to grant writs of habeas corpus to aliens when those aliens are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” (Henderson v. INS, 9/18/98)
BIA on Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion
The BIA found no jurisdiction to review a decision by INS to exercise prosecutorial discretion before the charging document is filed with the court, and that once it is filed, the Service may move to terminate but may not simply cancel the charging document. (Matter of G-N-C-, 9/17/98)
EOIR Proposed Rule on Appellate Review
This proposed rule would establish a streamlined appellate review procedure for the Board of Immigration Appeals due to the unprecedented increase in the number of appeals being filed with the Board. (63 FR 49043, 9/14/98)
INS Additional Guidance on NACARA Motions to Reopen
A 9/9/98 memo from Paul Virtue, General Counsel (INS) providing additional guidance on NACARA motion to reopen. The memo advises regional and district counsel to utilize restraint in opposing motions to reopen.
OCIJ Memo on NACARA MTR Deadline
Memo from Office of Chief Immigration Judge, dated September 4, 1998, on deadline for filing Motions to Reopen (MTR) under NACARA. Immigration Courts must continue to accept MTRs filed under section 203(c) of NACARA up to the close of business on September 11, 1998.
INS Proposed Rule on Surrender of Aliens Ordered Removed
INS proposed rule to require aliens subject to a final order of removal to surrender to the Service. This rule also establishes procedures for surrender, and bars persons violating these procedures from obtaining discretionary immigration benefits. (63 FR 47205, 9/4/98)
INS on NACARA Motions to Reopen Regarding Dependents
A 9/1/98 memo from Paul Virtue, General Counsel (INS) stating that NACARA-eligible individuals must file MTRs no later than 9/11/98. The memo specifically addresses the issue of dependents of NACARA-eligible individuals.
AILF Press Release on AILA v. Reno
AILF press release on the case, AILA v. Reno, et al, which challenged INS's implementation of expedited removal legislation in IIRIRA.
Court Rejects IIRIRA Challenge
The court rejects the assertion that the Interim Regulations implementing IIRIRA violate the intent of IIRIRA; that the INS fails to follow the Interim Regulations; and that IIRIRA and the Interim Regulations violate the Constitution. (AILA v. Reno, 8/27/98)
District Court Finds AEDPA § 440(d) Not Retroactive
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus GRANTED to the extent that the case REMANDED to the BIA for a discretionary determination of the merits of the application for relief under the old INA § 212(c). (Perez v. Reno, 8/25/98)