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
CA9 Holds That BIA Erred by Requiring Quantitative Evidence of Torture and Failing to Give Reasoned Consideration to Expert Reports
The court held that the BIA erred by imposing a quantitative evidence requirement, where the regulations require it to consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, and by failing to give reasoned consideration to expert reports. (Parada Calderon v. Blanche, 8/28/26)
Immigration Consequences of Registering to Vote and Voting in U.S. Elections
With elections approaching in the fall, it is a good time to remind clients of immigration consequences of noncitizens registering to vote and voting in U.S. elections. Doing so in federal, state, and county elections in violation of the law carries numerous serious immigration consequences.
EOIR Announces Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge, Administrative Law Judge, 35 IJs, and 3 Temporary IJs
EOIR announced the swearing in of a regional deputy chief immigration judge within the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, an administrative law judge within the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, 35 immigration judges, and 3 temporary immigration judges.
Think Immigration: What Would Dolly Do? Carrying Her Compassion into Immigration Advocacy
Drawing on Dolly Parton’s legacy of compassion, dignity, and hope, AILA Board Member Brittany Faith reflects on how Dolly's recording of “Deportee” speaks to immigration advocacy today: honoring the names, stories, and humanity of those our members represent and defend.
BIA Holds That IJs Generally Lack Jurisdiction to Redetermine Custody Once a Removal Order Is Administratively Final
The BIA held that IJs generally lack jurisdiction to redetermine custody conditions once a noncitizen becomes subject to an administratively final removal order, and, on DHS’s appeal, vacated an IJ’s order releasing the respondent on a $1,500 bond. Matter of W–F–D–, 29 I&N Dec. 854 (BIA 2026)
CA1 Holds No Remand Needed Where IJ Applied First Circuit Law in the Alternative and BIA Adopted That Rationale
The court held that no remand was needed where the IJ applied First Circuit law in the alternative and the BIA adopted it, that the adjustment and asylum-timeliness rulings were unreviewable, and that the Jamaican petitioner’s proposed PSG was not cognizable. (Bromfield v. Blanche, 8/25/26)
CA3 Finds CAT-Only Petition Moot After Removal and Holds Reentry Bar Is Not a Collateral Consequence
The court held that a petition for review challenging only the denial of CAT deferral was moot upon petitioner’s removal to El Salvador, because the reentry bar is not a collateral consequence of CAT denial and ICE Directive No. 11061.1 did not apply. (Mejia-Henriquez v. Att’y Gen., 8/25/26)
CA1 Upholds BIA’s Rejection of Asylum Claim Based on Form Order Granting Relative Asylum Without Reasoning or Facts
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that a form order granting a relative asylum, without reasoning or facts, showed no prima facie eligibility for asylum, and found that the Brazilian petitioners showed neither past persecution nor a well-founded fear. (Pereira Alves v. Blanche, 8/24/26)
CA4 Holds That Vacated Conviction Does Not Establish Inadmissibility Under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)
The court held a noncitizen is not inadmissible under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i) based on a vacated conviction, declining to follow Matter of Pickering, and that the regulations governing the timing of voluntary departure are not arbitrary and capricious. (Yanez Piedra v. Blanche, 8/24/26)
EOIR Final Rule on Inflation Adjustments for FY2027 EOIR Fees
EOIR final rule implementing inflation adjustments to FY2027 EOIR fees as a result of the provisions in H.R. 1. Fee increases for forms and motions range between $20 and $50 and are effective for all filings submitted on or after 10/1/26. (91 FR 54211, 8/21/26).
CA11 Finds Florida Robbery by Sudden Snatching Is Categorically an Aggravated Felony Theft Offense Under INA §101(a)(43)(G)
The court held that a Florida conviction for robbery by sudden snatching is categorically an aggravated felony theft offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G), rendering the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(a). (Ramdial v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 8/21/26)
AILA Files Amicus Brief Addressing Fairness and Appellate Review in Removal Proceedings
AILA argued that procedural errors undermined the fairness of removal proceedings. The brief contends that limits on record development, improper BIA fact-finding, and legal errors prevented meaningful review. (Khalil v. Blanche, 8/21/26)
DOJ 60-Day Notice of Revision and Extension of Forms EOIR-42A and EOIR-42B
DOJ notice of revision and extension of Form EOIR-42A, Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents and Form EOIR-42B, Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents. Comments are due 10/19/26. (91 FR 53897, 8/20/26)
CA2 Says Conviction Under INA §101(a)(48)(A) Requires Criminal Procedure Protections and a Criminal Sentence
The court held that a conviction under INA §101(a)(48)(A) is a formal judgment of guilt from a criminal proceeding affording minimum constitutional protections and a criminal sentence, and that the petitioner’s New Jersey disorderly persons offense qualified. (Wong v. Blanche, 8/19/26)
Call for Examples: EOIR Notice Issues
The EOIR committee is requesting AILA Members provide examples of delays in receiving notice (or instances of not receiving notice) to further illustrate current issues with notice from EOIR.
BIA Holds That Noncitizens May File Only One Motion to Reopen and That Equitable Tolling Does Not Apply to the Number Bar
The BIA held a noncitizen may file only one motion to reopen, whether with the immigration court or the BIA, subject to the statutory exception for battered spouses, children, and parents, and equitable tolling does not apply to the number bar. Matter of M–M–L–J–, 29 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2026)
NPR: ICE Detained a Venezuelan Soccer Pro. His Case Shows the Immigration Backlog Crisis
Homero Calderón was arrested by ICE despite having pending applications with USCIS. AILA’s Shev Dalal-Dheini called his case “symbolic of so many other individuals who are stuck in processing backlogs … individuals doing the right thing by filing their applications timely.”
CA4 Holds That Pursuing an I-601A Provisional Waiver Does Not Shield Noncitizens from Arrest, Detention, or Removal
The court held that provisional waiver regulations do not shield noncitizens from removal while pursuing I-601A waivers, and vacated summary judgment because the record did not show the government used the process to target plaintiffs for removal. (Sanchez, et al. v. Mullin, et al., 8/14/26)
BIA Holds That 10-Day Pre-Hearing Period Is the Only Statutory or Regulatory Time Requirement Needed to Safeguard Privilege of Counsel
The BIA held that the only statutory or regulatory time requirement to safeguard a noncitizen’s privilege of counsel is that the first hearing not occur earlier than 10 days after service of the Notice to Appear (NTA) under INA §239(b)(1). Matter of A–K–R–, 29 I&N Dec. 839 (BIA 2026)
CA3 Holds That a Removal Stay Must Be Vacated Where Petitioner Can No Longer Meet the Nken Factors on Ongoing Review
The court held that a stay of removal must be vacated where the petitioner can no longer carry his burden on the four factors in Nken v. Holder, and that his likelihood of success is the product of the likelihood on each independent issue. (Aristy-Rosa v. Att’y Gen., 8/14/26)
CA8 Finds Substantial Evidence Supported No Nexus Between Domestic Abuse and Guatemalan Petitioner’s Proposed Social Groups
The court held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief because the record did not compel a finding that petitioner’s abuse was on account of a proposed social group or that Guatemala would acquiesce in torture. (Matias-Pablo v. Blanche, 8/14/26)
CA5 Finds INA §242(a)(2) Does Not Strip Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Motion to Submit Late-Filed Evidence
The court held that INA §242(a)(2) does not strip jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to submit late-filed evidence, and that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s adverse credibility determination and its denial of CAT deferral of removal. (Lopez-Barrera v. Blanche, 8/14/26)
CA5 Holds That False Use of a Passport Under 18 USC §1543 Is Categorically a CIMT
The court held that a false use of a passport conviction under 18 USC §1543 was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), requiring the Nigerian petitioner, an LPR, to seek admission upon returning to the United States under INA §101(a)(13)(C)(v). (Ademola v. Blanche, 8/14/26)
CA5 Holds That Removal Under INA §237(a)(4)(A)(i) for Violating an Export Law Is Not Limited to National Security Threats
The court held that the removal ground for export law violations, INA §237(a)(4)(A)(i), is not limited to national security threats and covered the petitioner’s unlawful export of firearms, and that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral. (Olibris v. Blanche, 8/14/26)
CA9 Holds That Former Salvadoran Police Officer Failed to Show Persecution Was on Account of His Former Police Status
The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the petitioner, a former Salvadoran police officer, failed to establish a nexus to his status as a former officer, because all the threats he received occurred while he was still active. (Gonzalez-Argueta v. Blanche, 8/13/26)