Featured Issue: U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump 2.0
The U.S. immigration court system plays a critical role in upholding due process and ensuring fair hearings for individuals facing deportation. However, since January 20, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented significant changes that challenge the structural integrity of these courts. This page aims to provide up-to-date information on the policy and legal shifts affecting the U.S. immigration court system.
Latest Updates
Updates from EOIR
Browse the Featured Issue: U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump 2.0 collection
BIA Holds That Motion to Reopen Based on Ineffective Assistance Must Include Bar Complaint and Proof of Filing or Explain Why None Was Filed
The BIA held that a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel must include a copy of the bar complaint filed with disciplinary authorities and proof of the filing, or an explanation why a bar complaint was not filed. Matter of L–R–M–C– & V–A–M–M–, 29 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2026)
EOIR Issues Policy Memo on Public Access to EOIR Hearings
EOIR Director Daren Margolin issued a Policy Memorandum (PM 26-06) on public access to EOIR hearings. The memo outlines policy for providing public access to EOIR spaces, when immigration hearings may be closed, guidance for observing hearings, and reporting procedures for public access violations.
Policy Brief: How Congress Should Stop ICE and Border Patrol Shootings and Violence
Since the start of the Administration, ICE and Border Patrol have been responsible for countless unlawful and violent abuses against immigrants and U.S. citizens, leading to serious injury and death. This policy brief highlights recent abuses and offers AILA’s solutions for reforming the system.
DHS Notice of Rescission of 2011 Limited English Proficiency Guidance
DHS notice of the recission, effective 7/14/26, of its 2011 guidance to Federal financial assistance recipients regarding the Title VI prohibition against national origin discrimination affecting limited English proficient persons, consistent with E.O. 14224. (91 FR 43108, 7/14/26)
Practice Alert: Federal Court Vacates Immigration Administrative Closure Rule through Expedited Consent Judgment
On 6/22/26, a federal district court in Texas issued an order in State of Texas v. Department of Justice declaring that no statute authorizes immigration judges to indefinitely pause removal proceedings. The EOIR Committee provides this practice alert with more details and practice implications.
BIA Finds DHS’s Oral Motion to Pretermit Provided Sufficient Notice of Intent to Remove Respondents to Ecuador under ACA
The BIA held that DHS’s oral motion to pretermit respondents’ applications for asylum and related protection provided sufficient notice of its intent to remove them to a third country pursuant to an asylum cooperative agreement (ACA). Matter of E–A–R–M–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2026)
BIA Holds That DHS Need Not Provide Implementing Instrument to Establish That Respondents Are Subject to ACA
The BIA held that DHS need not provide an asylum cooperative agreement (ACA) implementing instrument or a full set of operative terms and criteria to show respondents are subject to the ACA for purposes of the safe third country bar. Matter of N–E–R–S–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 753 (BIA 2026)
CA4 Holds That Virginia Embezzlement Is Not Categorically an Aggravated Felony Crime Involving Fraud or Deceit
The court held that embezzlement under Va. Code Ann. §18.2-111 is not categorically a crime involving fraud or deceit under INA §101(a)(43)(M)(i), because “fraudulently” in the statute means wrongful or felonious intent and the elements do not require concealment. (Ramos v. Blanche, 7/9/26)
CA9 Finds Counsel’s Failure to Notify Petitioners of BIA Decision and Petition for Review Deadline Was Grounds to Seek Reopening
The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in denying reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel, incorrectly concluding it lacked authority over conduct before a different tribunal and finding a courtesy copy provided sufficient notice. (Menjivar-Ayala v. Blanche, 7/9/26)
CA2 Vacates CAT Denial Where Agency Failed to Assess Whether Former Gang Member’s Likely Detention in El Salvador Would Constitute Torture
The court held that the agency failed to properly assess whether petitioner’s likely detention in El Salvador, including prison conditions intentionally created and maintained by the government, would amount to torture, and thus remanded his CAT claim. (Aguilar-Villalobos v. Blanche, 7/8/26)
BIA Holds That Conscription Is Not a Standalone Asylum Basis and the Inhuman Conduct Exception Must Be Tethered to a Protected Ground
The BIA held that conscription is not a standalone asylum basis absent a nexus to a protected ground, and that conscription requiring inhuman conduct condemned by the international community is persecution only when tethered to a protected ground. Matter of R–A–N–, 29 I&N Dec. 739 (BIA 2026)
CA4 Vacates Particularly Serious Crime Finding Where BIA and IJ Failed to Meaningfully Analyze Offense’s Elements Before Underlying Facts
The court held that the BIA and the IJ failed to apply the two-step test required by Matter of N–A–M– in determining that the petitioner’s Virginia conviction for assault and battery against a family member was a particularly serious crime. (Guevara Martinez v. Blanche, 7/7/26)
CA9 Holds That Unrebutted Matter of Y–L– Presumption for Drug Trafficking Aggravated Felonies Triggered Danger-to-Community Presumption
The court held that Matter of Y–L–’s unrebutted presumption that drug trafficking aggravated felonies are particularly serious triggered the regulatory presumption of danger to the community, and no separate dangerousness determination was required. (Sarr v. Blanche, 7/7/26)
CA8 Declines to Review Unexhausted Cancellation of Removal Arguments Raised for First Time in Petition for Review
The court declined to address unexhausted arguments that the agency relied on the wrong statute to declare the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal based on her Nebraska negligent child abuse conviction and overlooked the petty-offense exception. (Lopez-Lopez v. Blanche, 7/7/26)
CA7 Holds That Reinstatement Orders Are Reviewable Final Orders and 30-Day Petition for Review Deadline Is Subject to Equitable Tolling
The court held that reinstatement orders are reviewable final orders of removal and that INA §242(b)(1)’s 30-day petition for review deadline is subject to equitable tolling where petitioners relied on binding pre-Riley circuit precedent. (E.E.V. and M.C.C.-G. v. Blanche, 7/6/26)
Recommendations on Protecting Individuals Impacted by Recent Earthquakes in Venezuela
AILA urges the Administration to take immediate action to ensure the safety and security of all people impacted by the recent earthquakes in Venezuela and to take affirmative steps to ensure that individuals are not forced to return to danger during the aftermath of the natural disaster.
CA4 Holds That Nominal Appeal of Removal Order Preserves CAT Review and Finds BIA Misapplied Clear-Error Review
The court held that noncitizens challenging only the result of withholding-only proceedings may preserve review of their CAT claims by filing a nominal appeal of their removal orders, and that BIA misapplied the clear error standard by reweighing the IJ’s findings. (Riley v. Blanche, 7/2/26)
EOIR Notice of Revision of Form EOIR-59, Certification and Release of Records
EOIR 60-day notice of revision and extension of Form EOIR-59, Certification and Release of Records. EOIR will add a field to the form to collect the name of a parent or guardian. Comments are due 8/31/26. (91 FR 40032, 7/1/26)
BIA Holds Bond Redetermination Venue Is the Immigration Court over the Place of Detention, Not Where Removal Case Is Pending
The BIA held that, under 8 CFR §1003.19(c)(1), the proper venue for a respondent’s request for bond redetermination is the immigration court having jurisdiction over the respondent’s place of detention. Matter of Vizcaino Aybar, 29 I&N Dec. 736 (BIA 2026)
BIA Holds IJ May Not Find Respondents Credible Solely for Candor in Admitting They Previously Lied to Obtain Immigration Benefits
The BIA sustained DHS’s appeal and remanded, holding that an IJ may not determine that a respondent is credible solely because the respondent was candid in admitting they previously lied to obtain immigration benefits. Matter of T–D–E–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 732 (BIA 2026)
Practice Pointer: A Reminder to Practitioners on Motions to Suppress
This practice pointer reminds AILA members to consider motions to suppress in removal proceedings, highlighting recent federal caselaw, immigration court practice trends, and practical tips on pleadings, declarations, corroboration, subpoenas, and appeal preservation.
Practice Alert: Impacts of the Supreme Court Decision in Blanche v. Lau
The CBP Committee provides a resource with strategies for practitioners following the June 23, 2026, US Supreme Court ruling that CBP officers do not need to meet the “clear and convincing” standard that an LPR has committed an inadmissible offense before deeming them an “applicant for admission.”
CA6 Holds That Photocopies of Drafted Letters and Bar Complaint Did Not Satisfy Lozada for Ineffective Assistance Claim
The court held that photocopies of a bar complaint and letters, without proof they were sent or filed, did not satisfy Matter of Lozada’s requirement of an actually filed complaint and notice to counsel, and upheld the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen. (Morris v. Blanche, 6/25/26)
CA9 Finds Crime of Child Abuse under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) Covers Criminally Negligent Child Endangerment by Parents and Nonparents Alike
The court held that the best reading of the INA crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment covers child endangerment, requires at least criminal negligence, and reaches nonparents, and denied the consolidated petitions for review. (Leon-Briviesca v. Blanche, 6/25/26)
EOIR Releases Updated Fact Sheet on Observing Court Hearings
EOIR released an updated fact sheet on observing court hearings. Notably, this version permits people to observe web-only hearings over Webex. It explicitly states that observers will not be permitted to attend via Webex if the judge, respondent, or counsel is appearing in a physical courtroom.