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 Petitioner’s California Burglary Conviction Does Not Render Him Removable Under Sessions v. Dimaya
The court held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Sessions v. Dimaya negated the BIA’s ground of removal—specifically, that the petitioner was removable because his California burglary conviction was a crime-of-violence aggravated felony. (Cheneau v. Barr, 8/19/20)
GAO Says ICE Should Enhance Its Use of Facility Oversight Data and Management of Detainee Complaints
GAO examined what ICE does with oversight inspection data and information from detainee complaints and found that ICE doesn’t comprehensively analyze inspection or complaint information to identify trends in deficiencies, and that ICE doesn’t have reasonable assurance that complaints are addressed.
DHS OIG Says Children Waited for Extended Periods in Vehicles to Be Reunified with Their Parents at ICE’s Port Isabel Detention Center
DHS OIG confirmed that due to ICE’s lack of preparedness and underestimation of required resources, some children were held in vehicles or detention cells for extended periods of time, in many cases overnight, before being reunited with their parents at the Port Isabel Detention Center in July 2018.
CA2 Finds BIA Erred in Holding That Petitioner’s Insurance Fraud Offense Caused More Than $10,000 in Victim Losses
Granting the petition for review, the court held that the BIA had failed to satisfactorily justify its conclusion that the losses suffered by the victims of the petitioner’s insurance fraud offense had exceeded $10,000. (Rampersaud v. Barr, 8/19/20)
The Attorney General Solicits Amicus Briefs in Matter of A-M-R-C-
Referring a BIA decision to himself, the AG invites amicus briefs on issues related to effect of time of referral; serious nonpolitical crime bar and persecutor bar; and due process issues in respondent’s in absentia trial. Matter of A-M-R-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 7 (AG 2020). Amicus briefs due 9/29.
CA3 Finds No Categorical Match Between Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse in Pennsylvania and Corresponding Federal Crime
The court concluded that there was not a categorical match between the petitioner’s statute of conviction, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in Pennsylvania, and the corresponding generic federal crime, sexual abuse of a minor under INA §101(a)(43)(A). (Cabeda v. Att’y Gen., 8/18/20)
CA4 Applies Barton v. Barr to Hold Petitioner Is Ineligible for Cancellation of Removal
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Barton v. Barr, the court held that petitioner, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who had committed an INA §212(a)(2) offense, was ineligible for cancellation of removal even though he was not seeking admission. (Argueta v. Barr, 8/18/20)
CA2 Says Conviction for Felony Possession of Narcotics with Intent to Sell in Connecticut Is a CIMT
The court held that the petitioner’s convictions for felony possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §21a-277(a)(1) qualified as crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). (Mota v. Barr, 8/17/20)
CA9 Remands Asylum Claims of Cameroonian Petitioner Who Lived in Hiding for a Year After Being Ordered to Marry Village Chieftain
Finding that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s denial of asylum and related relief, the court held that petitioner’s ability to elude her pursuers did not establish that she would be able to avoid persecution or torture by relocating within Cameroon. (Akosung v. Barr, 8/14/20)
AILA Submits Comments Opposing EOIR’s Proposed Revision to the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
AILA submitted comments opposing EOIR’s proposed revision to Form I-589 and accompanying instructions. AILA noted that the revision, which lacks clarity, would increase time and cost burdens on applicants and would ultimately result in refugees losing their ability to seek protection in the U.S.
CAP Publishes Report on Restoring Integrity and Independence at DOJ
The Center for American Progress issued a report on restoring integrity and independence at DOJ, including restoring fairness in immigration proceedings. The report calls attention to DOJ’s interference with immigration judges’ independence and the issuance of legal opinions reversing settled law.
AILA, the Council, and Partners Submit Amicus Brief to SCOTUS on Two-Step Notice Process in Niz-Chavez v. Barr
AILA and partners submitted an amicus brief to SCOTUS in Niz-Chavez v. Barr, arguing that the government’s two-step notice practice distorts the congressional scheme and undermines fundamental fairness. The brief includes examples of DHS’s use of fake dates which has led to chaos in courts.
CA9 Finds Petitioner Was Not “Admitted” Under INA §240A(a) When Approved as a Derivative Beneficiary of VAWA (Withdrawn)
Denying the petition for review, the court held that petitioner was not “admitted” within the meaning of the cancellation of removal statute when he was approved as a derivative beneficiary of his mother’s self-petition VAWA. (Enriquez v. Barr, 8/13/20, withdrawn 3/1/21)
CA9 Says Petitioner’s Conviction for Second-Degree Murder in California Is an Aggravated Felony
Applying the modified categorical approach, the court held that the petitioner’s second-degree murder conviction under California Penal Code §187(a) constituted an aggravated felony under the INA that rendered him removable. (Gomez Fernandez v. Barr, 8/13/20)
CA11 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Ethnic Tamil Petitioner Who Alleged Persecution by Sri Lankan Army
The court found that both the BIA and the IJ had explicitly considered whether the petitioner’s Tamil ethnicity or his imputed political opinion could have been one central reason for his alleged persecution by the Sri Lankan army. (Lingeswaran v. Att’y Gen., 8/13/20)
CA7 Finds BIA Misapprehended Petitioner’s New Evidence in Support of Sua Sponte Motion to Reopen
The court held that the BIA had misapprehended the principal basis for petitioner’s sua sponte motion to reopen—namely, that contrary to the charge set forth in his Notice to Appear and his removal order, he had in fact entered the United States legally. (Salazar-Marroquin v. Barr, 8/13/20)
ICE Releases FAQs on Facilitating Return for Lawfully Removed Individuals
ICE released FAQs on its ICE Policy Directive Number 11061.1, Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens.
Featured Issue: The Pereira Ruling and Resulting Fake NTAs
Per the decision in Pereira v. Session, individuals must be served with a notice to appear that specifies the time and place at which removal hearings will be held. This page tracks government efforts to comply with the ruling, court decisions, attorney and media resources, and more.
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Woman Who Feared Persecution by MS-13 Gang Members
The court held that the BIA did not err by concluding that the petitioner’s proposed social group—membership in her family—was not cognizable, finding that the petitioner’s financial resources was the central reason for her persecution by members of the MS-13 gang. (Fuentes v. Barr, 8/12/20)
CA9 Says Attempting to Communicate with a Child with Intent to Commit Lewd or Lascivious Acts upon Them in California Is a CIMT
Denying the petition for review, the court held that, under California law, attempting to communicate with a child with the intent to commit lewd or lascivious acts upon that child categorically constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). (Syed v. Barr, 8/12/20)
CA7 Finds No Abuse of Discretion in BIA’s Denial of Guatemalan Single Mother’s Motions to Reopen and Reconsider
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motions to reopen and reconsider, finding that she had rehashed the same arguments already considered, and that additional information submitted offered no new material evidence. (Lopez-Garcia v. Barr, 8/11/20)
CA9 Denies Qualified Immunity to Montana Judge and Sheriff’s Deputy over Undocumented Immigrant’s Courthouse Arrest
In an action alleging that an undocumented immigrant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested in a Montana courthouse, the court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to the defendants, a local judge and sheriff’s deputy. (Reynaga Hernandez v. Skinner, et al., 8/10/20)
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus Brief on the Reinterpretation of the INA in Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson
AILA and partners submitted an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit requesting the court to reject the Attorney General’s reinterpretation of the INA in Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson, which violates congressional intent to give full legal effect to state court modification orders.
CA9 Reaffirms That BIA Must Analyze Cognizability of Particular Social Groups on a Case-by-Case Basis
The court held that the BIA had misapplied Matter of A-B-, as well as past precedent, in concluding that the petitioner’s proposed social group comprised of “indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not cognizable. (Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 8/7/20)
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim of Nicaraguan Petitioner Who Suffered Frequent and Severe Abuse by Domestic Partner
Granting the petition for review, the court held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner had failed to establish the Nicaraguan government was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution by her domestic partner. (Davila v. Barr, 8/7/20)