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
Policy Brief: Unchecked ICE Violence Sweeps in More U.S. Citizens, People with Legal Status, and People Applying for Legal Status
Since the start of the Administration, ICE has 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.
EOIR Notice of Extension and Revision of Form EOIR-59, Certification and Release of Records
EOIR 30-day notice of the extension and revision of Form EOIR-59, Certification and Release of Records. Revisions include a new field to collect parent or guardian name, removal of the term “noncitizen”, and updated links and privacy policy. Comments are due 10/13/26. (91 FR 57930, 9/11/26)
BIA Holds Declarants Need Not Be Made Available for Cross-Examination Before IJ Can Consider Declarations for Inter-Proceeding Comparison
The BIA held that redaction of personally identifying information from inter-proceeding declarations provides sufficient protection of the declarants’ privacy and that declarants need not be made available for cross-examination before comparison. Matter of V–S–A–, 30 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2026)
Think Immigration: How the Trump Administration Is Monetizing Immigration Enforcement on the Back End
AILA Member Gunda Brost describes recent efforts by the Trump Administration to impose fines on individuals and businesses, writing that such notices “are essentially legal proceedings—not simply bills” and that one must “respond in a timely manner or important rights could be lost.”
CA9 Holds That Persecutor Bar Contains No Implied Duress Defense
The court held that the persecutor bar contains no implied duress defense and that evidence of the petitioner’s ties to the Atonal Battalion in El Salvador, together with an unchallenged adverse credibility finding, supported application of the bar. (Perez-Castillo v. Blanche, 9/8/26)
CA7 Holds That Petitioner Failed to Exhaust Challenges to Essential Elements of Asylum, Withholding, and CAT Claims
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies because she did not adequately present to the BIA arguments challenging essential grounds for the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. (Gonzalez Perez v. Blanche, 9/8/26)
CA2 Holds That CBP Has Authority to Reopen, Reconsider, and Rescind Reinstatement Orders
The court held that reinstatement orders are final orders of removal subject to review, that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling of his untimely petition, and that 8 CFR §103.5(a) authorizes CBP to reopen, reconsider, and rescind reinstatement orders. (Santos v. Blanche, 9/8/26)
EOIR Policy Memorandum (PM) 26-07 on In-Office Adjudicator Voluntary Transfer Policy
EOIR Acting Director Sirce E. Owen issued policy memorandum (PM) 26-07 establishing a uniform policy for the processing of voluntary, in-person duty station transfer requests by EOIR adjudicators.
BIA Holds That Maduro’s Removal from Power and Transfer of Executive Authority Constituted Changed Country Conditions in Venezuela
The BIA held that the removal of former President Maduro from power and the ensuing transfer of executive authority constituted a change in country conditions in Venezuela for purposes of assessing an applicant’s prospective fear of persecution. Matter of A–E–V–M–, 30 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2026)
CA9 Finds Agency Erred by Requiring Formal Affidavit and Corroboration for Motion to Reopen In Absentia Order
The court held that the agency erred by requiring a pro se petitioner to submit a separate formal affidavit or corroborating documentary evidence for a motion to reopen an in absentia order where his factual assertions were not inherently unbelievable. (Trigueros Quizar v. Blanche, 9/4/26)
BIA Holds That DHS May Mail NTA to Most Recent Address the Noncitizen Provided, Overruling Matter of G–Y–R–
The BIA held that, when mailing a Notice to Appear (NTA) by regular mail, DHS can rely on the most recent address the noncitizen provided, and that written notice of in absentia proceedings is sufficient if mailed to the most recent address provided. Matter of Diji, 30 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2026)
EOIR Training Documents on Handling Requests for Continuances
On September 2, 2026, EOIR conducted an online training that instructed immigration judges on handling requests for continuances. AILA has obtained documents from this training, which have not been released by EOIR.
CA9 Holds BIA Abused Its Discretion by Denying Petitioner Opportunity to Show That Attorney’s Factual Admission Was Untrue
The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by affirming the denial of the petitioner’s motion to amend a pleading without allowing the petitioner to present evidence that his attorney’s factual admission regarding his manner of entry was untrue. (Urias-Gaxiola v. Blanche, 9/2/26)
CA3 Grants Government’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Vacates Prior Opinion in Laureano v. Att’y Gen.
The court denied the petitioner’s petition for rehearing, granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc, and vacated its 5/29/26 opinion and judgment. (Laureano v. Att’y Gen., 9/2/26)
CA8 Says CAT Order Is Not a Final Order of Removal and 30-Day Petition for Review Deadline Is Not Subject to Equitable Tolling
The court held that a CAT order is not a final order of removal reviewable on its own under INA §242(a)(1) and that the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review is a mandatory claims-processing rule not subject to equitable tolling. (B.P. v. Blanche, 9/2/26)
CA8 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Standalone Negative Reasonable Fear Determination
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under INA §242(a)(1) to review an IJ’s affirmance of an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination because the decision is not a final order of removal and does not affect the validity of one. (Sebastian-Perez v. Blanche, 9/2/26)
CA1 Finds IJ Properly Applied Hardship Standard in Denying Cancellation to Petitioner Whose Son Had Asthma
The court held that the IJ properly applied the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard and considered the relevant evidence in denying cancellation of removal based on hardship to the petitioner’s children, including his son’s asthma. (Espinoza Benitez v. Blanche, 9/1/26)
CA7 Holds That Wisconsin Child Neglect Conviction Is Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse Under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i)
The court held that Wisconsin’s child neglect statute is categorically a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i), rendering the petitioner’s conviction under the statute a bar to cancellation of removal. (Reynoso-Salgado v. Blanche, 9/1/26)
CA3 Holds That Change in Law Is Not Basis for Statutory Reopening and Rejects Equitable Tolling for Reconsideration
The court held that a change in law is not a basis for statutory reopening, that the petitioner’s untimely motion for reconsideration did not warrant equitable tolling, and that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of sua sponte reopening. (Aristy-Rosa v. Att’y Gen., 9/1/26)
USCIS Interim Final Rule on Affirmative Asylum Referrals Without Interview
USCIS interim final rule allowing asylum officers to refer certain asylum applications to EOIR without conducting an asylum interview. The rule is effective 7/28/26. Comments are due 9/28/26. (91 FR 47101, 7/28/26; 91 FR 55735, 8/31/26)
CA2 Finds Conspiracy to Retaliate Against Witness Under 18 USC §1513(b) Is Categorically a CIMT
The court held that conspiracy to retaliate against a witness in violation of 18 USC §1513(b) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and that the INA’s moral turpitude ground of removability was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. (Dziedziach v. Blanche, 8/31/26)
CA9 Holds That Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule Conflicts with Asylum Statute and That Agency Erred on Mixed Motives Analysis
The court held that the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule conflicts with the asylum statute by restricting eligibility based on manner of entry, and that the agency also legally erred by failing to apply the complete mixed motives framework. (Garcia Morales v. Blanche, 8/31/26)
BIA Holds That DHS Properly Imposed Civil Penalty on Respondent Who Failed to Depart Under His Voluntary Departure Order
The BIA held that DHS properly imposed a civil monetary penalty after the respondent failed to depart the United States in compliance with his voluntary departure order, and that INA §240B(d)(1) does not require the failure to depart to be willful. Matter of R–P–L–, 29 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2026)
CA9 Holds That Agency Improperly Relied on Trivial Inconsistencies and Disregarded Translation Difficulties in Adverse Credibility Finding
The court held that the adverse credibility determination lacked substantial evidence because the agency improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies and disregarded significant translation difficulties, and that it also legally erred in denying CAT relief. (Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche, 8/28/26)
CA9 Holds That Notice Sent to Address DHS Told BIA Was Incorrect Was Not Reasonably Calculated to Reach Detained Noncitizen
The court held that where the BIA has been notified by DHS that a detained noncitizen’s location differs from the address used to mail a notice of appeal or briefing schedule and no additional reasonable steps are taken, such notice violates due process. (Jacques v. Blanche, 8/28/26)