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
BIA Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Claim for Relief Under CAT Article 3
The BIA lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for relief from deportation under Article 3 of the U.N. CAT as there has been no legislation implementing Article 3, no regulations have been promulgated, and Article 3 is a non-self-executing treaty provision. (Matter of H-M-V-, 8/25/98)
CA5 Finds Vehicle Stop Violates 4th Amendment
CA5 finds a Fourth Amendment violation and conclude that there were insufficient articulable facts surrounding the Border Patrol's stop of a vehicle to satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion. (U.S. v. Rodriquez-Rivas, 8/17/98)
Amicus Brief in In the Matter of Yahia Meddah
Brief of amici curiae to the BIA, in the Matter of Yahia Meddah and whether under the Convention Against Torture, an individual may be removed to a country where there is substantial grounds for believing that the individual would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
EOIR OPPM 98-6 Detail City Coverage
Memo was rescinded 9/18/18. EOIR issues OPPM 98-6, Detail City Coverage, which updates the location and frequency of detail city coverage for each Immigration Court and sets forth guidelines to provide for detail city caseload coordination with base city operations. Supersedes OPPM 86-11.
BIA Says Post-6/20/91 OSC Must be Filed with Court to Initiate Proceedings
The BIA held that in order to commence proceedings against an alien for purposes of INA 204(g) and 245(e)(2), an OSC and notice of hearing that was issued on or after June 20, 1991, must be filed with the immigration court. (Matter of Casillas, 8/4/98)
CA5 Grants Motion to Suppress
Motion to Suppress granted where there was no reasonable suspicion for traffic stop. (U.S. v. Jones, 7/31/98)
INS Proposed Rule on Juvenile Processing after Flores v. Reno
INS proposed rule to establish the procedures for processing juveniles in Service custody. The new rule sets guidelines for the release of juveniles from custody and the detention of unreleased juveniles in state-licensed programs and detention facilities. (63 FR 39759, 7/24/98)
BIA Rejects Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim as Basis for Excusing Untimely MTR
The BIA held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not constitute an exception to the 180-day statutory limit for the filing of a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order on the basis of exceptional circumstances. (Matter of A-A-, 7/16/98)
BIA Rejects Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim to Excuse Late MTR
The BIA held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not constitute an exception to the 180-day statutory limit for the filing of a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order of deportation on the basis of exceptional circumstances. (Matter of Lei, 7/16/98)
Comments on Interim Regulations on NACARA Motions to Reopen
AILA, AILF, and Immigrant Legal Resource Center comments on the NACARA June 11, 1998, interim rules on Motion to Reopen under NACARA.
AILA-INS General Counsel Liaison Meeting (7/10/98)
Highlights of the July 10, 1998, AILA-INS General Counsel Liaison Meeting.
AILA/EOIR July 1998 Report
July 1998 Monthly Mailing AILA/EOIR liaison report by Royal F. Berg.
BIA Defines Limits of Exclusion Proceedings for Advance Parolees in CA9
In cases falling within the Ninth Circuit, exclusion proceedings are appropriate for aliens returning on advance parole, unless the alien has a pending registry application or is not informed by the INS that they risk being placed in such proceedings upon reentry. (Matter of S-O-S-, 7/9/98)
BIA Says Asylum Applicant Was Properly Placed in Exclusion
The BIA held that an applicant for asylum who departed and returned to the U.S. on advance parole was properly placed in exclusion proceedings following the denial of his application for asylum and revocation of his parole. (Matter of G-A-C-, 7/9/98)
CA3 Vacates Marriage Fraud Conviction
The court held that the testimonial evidence of Appellant and her spouse would not have been inevitably discovered by routine INS procedures and ordered the district court to vacate Appellant's conviction for marriage fraud under INA 275(c). (U.S. v. Vasquez de Reyes, 7/8/98)
EOIR Notice with NACARA MTR Correction
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) notice correcting minor typo in 6/11/98 Federal Register notice on NACARA motions to reopen. (63 FR 36992, 7/8/98)
EOIR Memo with Guidelines for Recording Immigration Hearings
EOIR memorandum 98-2, dated 7/7/98, provides guidelines for recording immigration hearings, including information on the quality of the taped records, issues with tape-recording equipment, transcribing errors, and approved machines. This memo was supplemented by OPPM 03-06, issued 10/10/03.
CA9 Reverses Earlier Decision on Imputed Political Opinion
On rehearing, the court found that record compels the conclusion that the petitioner's undisputed fear of future persecution by Sendero Luminoso was on account of political opinion imputed to him by the guerillas. (Vera-Valera v. INS, 7/7/98)
CA9 Vacates Criminal Sentence for Illegal Reentry
The court vacated the plaintiff's 30-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 USC §1326(a) & (b)(2) and remanded for resentencing. (U.S. v. Moreno-Perez, 7/7/98)
BIA Reopens In Absentia Removal Order
The BIA held that the respondent's 1997 motion to reopen his 1987 in absentia deportation order was not time barred since he received no notice of the deportation hearing. (Matter of Mancera-Monroy, 7/1/98)
EOIR Technical Corrections to NACARA Rule
Executive Office for Immigration Review technical corrections regarding the Motion To Reopen, Suspension of Deportation and Cancellation of Removal interim rule posted 6/11/98. Effective 6/29/98. (63 FR 35117, 6/29/98)
EOIR OPPM 98-3 on Motions to Reopen Under NACARA
EOIR issues OPPM 98-3, Regulations Implementing Motions to Reopen for Suspension of Deportation/Cancellation of Removal under NACARA and other NACARA cases, which replaces the June 10, 1998, memo on the same topic.
CA9 Attributes Parents' Firm Resettlement Onto Child
The court held that Petitioner's parents were firmly resettled in France prior to entering the United States in 1991 and attributed the parents' firm resettlement onto Petitioner who lived in France as a child until he was 16. (Vang v. INS, 6/24/98)
CA9 Rejects Deriviative Citizenship Defense to Illegal Reentry Charge
The court rejected plaintiff's claim of derivative citizenship and affirmed his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to a felony conviction in violation of 8 USC 1326(b)(1). (U.S. v. Viramontes-Alvarado, 6/24/98)
No District Court Jurisdiction for VD Extension
District Court finds it does not have jurisdiction over a request for an extension of voluntary departure. (Tutu v. Blackman, 6/18/98)