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
CA6 Finds Petitioner Did Not Prove He Entered the U.S. Without Inspection
The court held that petitioner, a citizen of India who initially claimed that he entered with a visitor visa and later claimed that he entered without inspection, failed to prove his manner of entry into the U.S. pursuant to INA §245’s eligibility requirement. (Patel v. Lynch, 6/30/16)
BIA Says IJs May Implement Safeguards in Cases Involving Issues of Mental Competency
The BIA held that, in cases involving issues of mental competency, an Immigration Judge (IJ) has the discretion to select and implement appropriate safeguards, which the Board of Immigration Appeals reviews de novo. Matter of M-J-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 773 (BIA 2016)
CA2 Says NY Child Pornography Conviction Is an Aggravated Felony
The court upheld the BIA, holding that the petitioner's conviction for possession of child pornography in New York constituted an aggravated felony under the INA. (Weiland v. Lynch, 6/29/16)
CA7 Finds Adverse Credibility Finding Was Based on Illusory or Immaterial Inconsistencies
The court granted the petition for review, holding that the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was flawed because several of the perceived inconsistencies were illusory, and the actual inconsistencies were either immaterial or trivial. (Yuan v. Lynch, 6/28/16)
BIA Finds Waiver of Appeal Not Knowing and Intelligent
Unpublished BIA decision finds waiver of appeal not knowing and intelligent because it was made following an assertion by DHS attorney that respondent was ineligible for asylum and because IJ made no further inquiry. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of A-M-G-B-, 6/28/16)
BIA Reverses Finding of Inadmissibility Under Vartelas
Unpublished BIA decision reverses finding of inadmissibility against returning LPR under INA 212(a)(2)(B) because convictions occurred prior to IIRIRA and thus did not apply retroactively under Vartelas v. Holder. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Elizondo Gonzalez, 6/27/16)
EOIR Swears in 15 Immigration Judges
EOIR announced the investiture of 15 immigration judges (IJs). Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch appointed judges for courts in California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Missouri, and Colorado.
BIA Says Noncitizen Who Gives False Testimony Before IJ to Obtain Benefits Can’t Establish Good Moral Character
The BIA held that a noncitizen cannot establish good moral character if, during the relevant period, he or she gives false testimony under oath in proceedings before an IJ with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. Matter of Gomez-Beltran, 26 I&N Dec. 765 (BIA 2016)
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Kenyan Kikuyu Ethnic Group Member
The court upheld the denial of asylum, finding that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner did not suffer persecution on account of his political opinion, religion, or membership in a particular social group. (Ngugi v. Lynch, 6/27/16)
Report on Increased U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers
Human Rights First released a report that examines the increase in asylum seekers held in U.S. immigration detention facilities, and makes recommendations to the Obama administration and Congress on how to improve policies and ensure compliance with human rights and refugee protection commitments.
CRS Report: FAQs Regarding the Supreme Court’s 4-4 Split on Immigration
A CRS Legal Sidebar provides answers to frequently asked questions regarding the effects of the Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision in United States v. Texas.
Supreme Court Rules on Use of Categorical and Modified Categorical Approach
The U.S. Supreme Court held that when a statute lists alternative factual scenarios, the statute is not divisible, and the modified categorical approach does not apply, unless those facts are actual elements of distinct crimes. (Mathis v. United States, 6/23/16)
CA3 Says PA Conviction for Possession with Intent to Manufacture or Deliver Cocaine Is an Aggravated Felony
The court denied the petition for review, holding that the petitioner’s Pennsylvania conviction for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver cocaine constituted an aggravated felony under the INA. (Bedolla-Avila v. Lynch, 6/23/16)
CA3 Says Petitioner’s PA Cocaine Charge Resulted in “Conviction” Under the INA
The court held that the record from petitioner’s Pennsylvania controlled substance case established his plea, the court’s findings, the sentence, and adjudication, and thus a formal judgment of guilt was entered, establishing his conviction under the INA. (Frias-Camilo v. Att'y Gen., 6/23/16)
Supreme Court Affirms Fifth Circuit’s Decision in United States v. Texas
An equally divided U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision, effectively upholding the lower court’s injunction halting the expansion of the DACA program and the creation of the new DAPA program. (United States v. Texas, 6/23/16)
AILA: Divided Supreme Court Leaves Millions of Immigrant Families in Limbo
AILA responded to the Supreme Court’s 4-4 deadlock in United States v. Texas with AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson noting, “Though today’s decision is disappointing, we must remember that this is not the end of the road for these incredibly important programs.”
AILA Member Talking Points on SCOTUS United States v. Texas Deadlock
AILA members can use these Talking Points with media when asked about the U.S. Supreme Court deadlock in United States v. Texas.
Fact Sheet on EOIR’S Fraud and Abuse Prevention Program
EOIR provided a fact sheet on its Fraud and Abuse Prevention Program. The goal of the program is to protect the integrity of EOIR’s removal proceedings.
CA8 Finds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination Was Supported by Cogent Reasons
The court denied the petition for review, finding that the IJ and BIA’s negative findings regarding petitioner’s credibility were supported by specific, cogent reasons and that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum and CAT claims. (Arevalo-Cortez v. Lynch, 7/22/16)
CA1 Upholds IJ’s Denial of Discretionary Relief under NACARA
The court dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the petitioner’s challenge to the underlying discretionary denial of relief under Section 203 of NACARA failed to raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim. (Lima v. Lynch, 6/21/16)
BIA Solicits Amicus Briefs on Commitments to Mental Health Facilities
The BIA invites interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs on whether a respondent who has been committed to a mental health treatment facility is “detain[ed] . . . in custody” or “release[d]” within the meaning of 8 CFR §1236.1(d)(1). Briefs are due by 7/21/16.
BIA Says Bond Not Required for Voluntary Departure Under Safeguards
Unpublished BIA decision holds that IJ erroneously required posting of $500 bond for detained respondent granted voluntary departure under safeguard. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Ivarra, 6/20/16)
Empty Benches: Underfunding of Immigration Courts Undermines Justice
AIC report analyzing the shortage of immigration judges in the U.S. immigration system. Congress has increased enforcement funding exponentially, yet has not provided the immigration courts commensurate funding and the resulting backlog has led to serious adverse consequences.
BIA Finds Prior Attorneys Provided Ineffective Assistance By Failing to Investigate Eligibility for Cancellation of Removal
Unpublished BIA decision finds that respondent’s two prior attorneys failed to adequately investigate whether she satisfied the seven-year continuous residence requirement necessary to apply for cancellation of removal. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Lopez, 6/17/16)
CA6 Finds USCIS’s Denial of Adjustment Application Was Final Agency Action Under APA
The court reversed the district court, holding that where no removal proceedings are pending, USCIS’s denial of an application for adjustment of status under INA §209 marks the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process. (Hosseini v. Johnson, et al., 6/17/16)