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
Congress Calls for Increased Oversight At CoreCivic Detention Facility In Torrance County
U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and U.S. Representatives Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) and Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) are calling on DHS officials to increase oversight on CoreCivic’s management of the Torrance County Detention Facility.
EOIR Amends PM 21-18 on Filing Deadlines in Non-Detained Cases
EOIR amended policy memorandum 21-18 to state that in cases involving non-detained respondents, amendments to applications and other supplemental filings can be submitted up to 15 days before individual calendar hearings, unless the immigration judge specifies otherwise. Effective 12/16/21.
CA9 Holds That an Individual’s Inadmissible Status Renders Their Reentry Illegal Regardless of Its Manner
The en banc court held that the petitioner, an inadmissible and previously deported noncitizen who was mistakenly waved into the United States by a border official, had illegally reentered the country within the meaning of INA §241(a)(5). (Tomczyk v. Garland, 12/14/21)
CA9 Declines to Rehear Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland En Banc
The court issued an order denying rehearing en banc of Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland, in which the court held that the BIA erred by relying on a probation report to conclude that the petitioner had been convicted of a particularly serious crime. (Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland, 12/14/21)
CA1 Upholds CAT Denial to Petitioner Who Claimed He Would Be Subject to Torture While “Imprisoned” in Haiti as a Criminal Deportee
Upholding the denial of petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, the court found that expert testimony concerning treatment in Haiti of criminal deportees did not address whether petitioner was more likely than not to be held in prolonged detention. (Bonnet v. Garland, 12/13/21)
EOIR Final Rule Implementing Mandatory E-Filing
EOIR final rule implementing mandatory electronic filing (e-filing) for cases before the immigration courts and the BIA. The rule also makes changes to the regulations regarding law student filing and accompaniment procedures. The rule is effective 2/11/22. (86 FR 70708, 12/13/21)
EOIR 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form EOIR-28
EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the Immigration Court. Comments are due 1/10/22. (86 FR 70533, 12/10/21)
Resources on Lawsuit Challenging DHS’s One-Year Filing Deadline for Asylum Applications
Learn more about the Mendez Rojas v. Wolf final settlement. Following the district court’s approval of the settlement agreement, USCIS has begun sending notices to potential class members on how they can benefit from the injunction and on the 4/22/22 filing deadline.
AILA and Partners Send Letter to USCIS and ICE on Access to Client Records
AILA and partners sent a letter requesting that USCIS, ICE, and EOIR revise its regulations, policies, practices, and procedures for providing access to records of proceedings (ROPs) and digital audio recordings (DARs) and Alien Files (“A-Files”) in immigration court and USCIS proceedings.
Attorney General Refers Matter of B-Z-R- for Review
The AG referred case to himself and automatically stayed the decision for review, inviting amicus on whether mental health may be considered when determining if an individual was convicted of a “particularly serious crime.” Amicus due by 1/17/22. Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 424 (A.G. 2021)
DHS Final Rule Exempting “DHS/OIDO–001 Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman” System of Records from Privacy Act
DHS final rule exempting portions of the newly established “DHS/OIDO–001 Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman” system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. The rule is effective 12/9/21. (86 FR 69977, 12/9/21)
CA3 Says Failure to Include Date and Time of Hearing in NTA Did Not Require Termination of Removal Proceedings
The court held that the BIA properly denied petitioner’s motion to terminate removal proceedings even though her Notice to Appear lacked a specific date and time, and found that “Guatemalan women” was not a cognizable particular social group (PSG). (Chavez-Chilel v. Att’y Gen., 12/9/21)
Immigration Detention Ombudsman Now Accepting Complaints at Certain ICE Facilities
The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman’s Office (OIDO) is now accepting complaints from people in detention who are currently held at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, GA and Florence Correction Center in Florence, Arizona.
CA5 Says Any Error in BIA’s Analysis Had No Impact on Its Ultimate Conclusion That Petitioner Was Removable
Where the petitioner had pleaded guilty to violating Section 14:81 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, which proscribes “indecent behavior with juveniles,” the court upheld the BIA’s removal order, finding that any errors the BIA had made were harmless. (Ibrahim v. Garland, 12/6/21)
CA5 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen and Rescind on Basis That He Did Not Receive Actual Written or Oral Notice
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s factual findings that the petitioner’s affidavit testimony was untrustworthy and that the petitioner had provided immigration officials with a deficient address. (Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 12/3/21)
Practice Pointer: “Operation Horizon” and What to Do with Your Client’s Notice to Report (Form I-385)
AILA’s Asylum & Refugee Committee provides a practice pointer on the rollout of ICE’s “Operation Horizon” and how attorneys representing individuals who were never placed into removal proceedings upon release from CBP custody may be impacted.
CA10 Remands to BIA to Reconsider Asylum/Withholding/CAT Applications and to Apply the Clear-Error Standard
The court held that the BIA erred in (1) overturning the IJ’s grant of asylum, (2) rejecting the IJ’s credibility findings without applying the clear-error standard, and (3) sua sponte finding petitioner ineligible for withholding or deferral of removal. (Villegas-Castro v. Garland, 12/2/21)
CA10 Finds INA §241(a)(5) Barred BIA’s Consideration of Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen
The court affirmed the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen under INA §241(a)(5), holding that the statute barred the motion’s consideration because the petitioner had illegally reentered the United States after being removed. (Tarango-Delgado v. Garland, 12/2/21)
EOIR 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Form EOIR-40
EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed changes to Form EOIR-40, Application for Suspension of Deportation. (86 FR 68286, 12/1/21)
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus Brief on the Applicability of INA § 240(c)(3)(B) to the Modified Categorical Approach
AILA and partners submitted a brief in response to BIA’s amicus invitation requesting to apply binding precedent limiting inquiry during the modified categorical approach to the Shepard documents and hold that INA § 240(c)(3)(B) applies to a determination of whether a conviction exists.
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim of Indian Petitioner to Consider Whether Certain Factors Sufficed to Support Credibility Determination
The court held that the bulk of the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility findings in the case were infirm, and remanded to the BIA to determine whether the few remaining factors were sufficient, in light of the totality of circumstances, to support such a finding. (Kumar v. Garland, 11/30/21)
CA4 Holds That Petitioner’s Accessory-After-the-Fact Conviction in Virginia Was an Aggravated Felony
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for being an accessory after the fact under Virginia law was an aggravated felony—namely one “relating to . . . the obstruction of justice”—under INA §101(a)(43)(S). (Pugin v. Garland, 11/30/21)
Documents Relating to Litigation over Biden Administration ICE Enforcement Priorities Memos
Find resources related to Texas v. United States, litigation concerning the Biden ICE enforcement memos. On 11/30/21, the Fifth Circuit (en banc) determined that the 9/15/21 panel opinion issuing a stay on the preliminary injunction against the memos should be vacated.
CRS Releases Legal Sidebar on Immigration Arrests in the Interior of the United States
CRS provided a report on ICE’s immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States. It explains general authority to arrest and detain, limitations to ICE’s arrest authority, worksite inspections, and recent congressional activity regarding ICE’s conduct of immigration enforcement actions.
CA2 Holds That a Pre-IIRAIRA OTSC Need Not Have Included Time-and-Place Information to Trigger Stop-Time Rule
The court held that the requirement that time-and-place information for a removal hearing be specified in a single Notice to Appear (NTA) to successfully trigger the stop-time rule does not apply to an Order to Show Cause (OTSC), a pre-IIRAIRA charging document. (Jiang v. Garland, 11/24/21)