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
AILA Sends Recommendations for Executive Action and Regulations on Immigration
AILA sent a letter to the White House with recommendations for executive action and regulations on immigration to ensure that the positive policy changes made during the Biden Administration are codified or otherwise made permanent.
CA5 Remands Asylum Claim of Nurse Who Was Threatened by Cameroonian Military for Treating Separatist Fighters
The court found that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s determination that the petitioner, a nurse who asserted that the Cameroonian military threatened to kill him because he treated separatist fighters, had failed to prove past persecution. (Aben v. Garland, 8/20/24)
EOIR Announces EOIR University
EOIR has launched EOIR University, a new training facility aimed at enhancing immigration representation. Part of the Access EOIR Initiative, this no-cost program offers training for both aspiring and current legal professionals.
CA1 Holds That BIA May Not Give Substantial Weight to Police Report Without a Conviction or Corroborating Evidence
The court vacated the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s adjustment of status application and remanded, holding that, in denying discretionary relief, the BIA may not give substantial weight to a police report in the absence of a conviction or corroborating evidence. (Rosa v. Garland, 8/16/24)
CA9 Finds It Lacked Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Denial of Petitioner’s Motions for Remand and Administrative Closure
The court denied the petition for rehearing en banc and issued an amended opinion dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motions for remand and administrative closure. (Tapia Coria v. Garland, 3/19/24, amended 8/16/24)
CA7 Concludes That Agency Had Authority under INA §240B to Promulgate Regulation Limiting Eligibility for Voluntary Departure
The court held that the agency did not exceed its authority in promulgating 8 CFR §1240.26(i), which restricts the ability of noncitizens to gain voluntary departure if they file a judicial challenge to their underlying order of removal. (Bernardo-De La Cruz v. Garland, 8/15/24)
CA1 Finds No Indication BIA Ignored Evidence Concerning Petitioner’s Medically Fragile Child Submitted with Motion to Reopen
The court held that, although the BIA did not mention the medical challenges of petitioner’s third child in its decision, there was no indication in its denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen sua sponte that it was unaware of the evidence petitioner submitted. (Charles v. Garland, 8/15/24)
The Case Management Pilot Program
AILA, Women's Refugee Commission, Global Refuge, Lutheran Social Services of the National Capital Area, and International Rescue Committee published a joint backgrounder on the Case Management Pilot Program (CMPP).
Practice Advisory: “Particularly Serious Crime” Bars on Asylum and Withholding of Removal
IDP and HIRC provide a practice advisory with legal standards and sample case law determinations on the "particularly serious crime” bars on asylum and withholding of removal.
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Salvadoran Petitioner Threatened by MS-13 Gang Members Conducting Drug Deals
The court found that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that petitioner’s status as a “single, Salvadoran mother with no familial protection” was not a central reason for her persecution, and thus upheld the denial of asylum. (Lemus-Aguilar v. Garland, 8/12/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Ecuadorian Petitioners Targeted Due to Personal Land-Related Dispute
The court held that the petitioners had failed to establish a nexus between their membership in their proposed particular social group (PSG) consisting of the “Penafiel-Peralta Nuclear Family” and the persecution they suffered in Ecuador. (Penafiel-Peralta, et al. v. Garland, 8/12/24)
CA6 Says BIA Failed to Conduct Proper Circularity Analysis as to Petitioner’s PSG
The court held that, reviewing the record as a whole, the particular facts of the petitioner’s case showed that her proposed particular social group (PSG) consisting of “victims of domestic violence” was not circular. (Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip, et al. v. Garland, 8/9/24)
CA1 Finds Indonesian Petitioner Who Once Provided Material Support to Foreign Terrorist Organization Ineligible for Asylum
The court held that the BIA and IJ did not violate the Indonesian petitioner’s due process rights by finding that he was ineligible for asylum because he had once provided material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization called Jemaah Islamiya. (Jani v. Garland, 7/29/24)
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus on the "Realistic Probability" Test
AILA and partners submit an amicus brief to the Third Circuit, arguing that the "realistic probability" test should not apply in every categorical approach case because there are cases in which the statute of conviction is, on its face, broader than the generic federal offense.
CA4 Holds That Indian Petitioner’s Involuntary Commitment and Forced Electroconvulsive Therapy Did Not Amount to Persecution
The court held that the involuntary hospitalization of, and administration of electroconvulsive therapy to, the Indian petitioner, who had “a well-documented history of debilitating and dangerous mental illnesses,” did not constitute persecution for asylum purposes. (Joshi v. Garland, 8/8/24)
CA1 Upholds Adverse Credibility Finding as to Brazilian Petitioner Threatened by Drug-Dealing Neighbor
The court held that, in light of the inconsistencies between petitioner’s statements and her testimony, the IJ and BIA reasonably concluded that petitioner’s testimony was not credible found she had offered no adequate corroborating evidence. (De Oliveira Rodrigues v. Garland, 8/8/24)
Featured Issue: It's Time to Change the Lozada Standard
Use this page to learn more about the impact of the Matter of Lozada and how AILA wants the Lozada standard changed.
CA4 Concludes That IJ Failed to Adequately Consider Therapist’s Letter in Denying Cancellation of Removal
The court held that the IJ failed to consider key portions of a therapist’s letter that was central to the petitioner’s argument that her removal would impose exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on her daughter for purposes of cancellation of removal. (Garcia Cortes v. Garland, 8/7/24)
CA1 Finds That Guatemalan Petitioner Failed to Prove He Was Persecuted “On Account Of” a Statutorily Protected Ground
The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the Guatemalan petitioner did not prove persecution “on account of” a protected ground pursuant to INA §101(a)(42)(A), and thus upheld the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of asylum. (Gonzalez-Arevalo v. Garland, 8/7/24)
Join the Recently Created Crimmigration Interest Group
The intersection of criminal law and immigration law has become fundamental since Padilla v. Kentucky. This interest group is for members who are interested in those discussions and resources. Join today!
Think Immigration: How Noncitizens Are Disadvantaged at Arraignments by “Neutral” Practices and Procedures
DEI Scholarship recipient Asmaa Hamadan describes how the criminal justice system is failing to guarantee noncitizens due process, writing “The system should be reformed to ensure that an individual’s situation is assessed holistically and not discriminate… for factors they cannot change.”
ICE Ends Free Phone Minutes Program Due to Budget Constraints
During COVID-19, ICE provided 520 free phone minutes monthly for detainees due to paused in-person visits. Post-pandemic, in-person visits resumed, and virtual attorney access expanded. To save $10.2 million and address budget constraints, ICE ended the phone minutes program.
CA7 Finds IJ Did Not Abuse His Discretion in Denying Continuance Where Counsel Was Unprepared for Hearing
The court held that the IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate the petitioners’ due process rights by refusing to continue their hearing, and found that it lacked jurisdiction to reach their ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (Bustos-Millan, et al. v. Garland, 8/6/24)
CA1 Says BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Petitioner’s Bank Fraud Conspiracy Offense Was a Particularly Serious Crime
The court concluded that the BIA did not err in determining that the IJ adequately specified that the petitioner’s conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud was a particularly serious crime that rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal. (Lafortune v. Garland, 8/5/24)
CA9 Says Petitioner’s Past Harm Rose to Level of Persecution Where It Included Physical Beating Connected to Credible Threat (Withdrawn)
The court held that petitioner, a member of the Mann Party who faced death threats and a beating from members of an opposing political party in India, had showed that his past harm, when cumulatively considered, rose to the level of persecution. (Kumar v. Garland, 8/2/24, withdrawn 1/17/25)