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 Declines to Rehear Mendoza-Linares v. Garland En Banc
The court denied the petition for rehearing en banc in the case, which held that Congress has precluded the court from asserting jurisdiction over the merits of individual expedited removal orders, even with regard to constitutional challenges. (Mendoza-Linares v. Garland, 7/5/23)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Honduran Petitioner Whose Family Was Involved in a Feud with Another Family
The court upheld the denial of asylum to the petitioner—who had fled his home in Honduras due to a murderous feud between his family and another family—finding that he had failed to show that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him. (Osorio-Morales v. Garland, 7/5/23)
CA11 Finds IJ and BIA Misinterpreted “Extreme Cruelty” in INA §240A(b)(2) as Requiring Proof of Physical Violence
Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court agreed with the petitioner that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted INA §240A(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. (Ruiz v. Att’y Gen., 5/18/23, amended 7/5/23)
The Immigration and Nationality Act’s Lost Appellate Rights Warnings
AILA Law Journal author Christopher Boom shares some insights into his recent article, noting that “Taking away appellate rights from noncitizens for not going to their hearings without warning them of this possibility first“ is unjust and contrary to the will of Congress.
CA3 Remands for Rescission of In Absentia Removal Order Where NTA Lacked Date and Time of Removal Hearing
Where the petitioner’s initial Notice to Appear (NTA) omitted the date and time of her removal hearing, the court remanded for the BIA to rescind her in absentia removal order, because no change or postponement occurred and DHS never issued a new NTA. (Madrid-Mancia v. Att’y Gen., 7/3/23)
Southern California Chapter OPLA Los Angeles Contact List (July 2023)
Southern California Chapter OPLA Los Angeles contact list as of July 2023.
Southern California Chapter Unit Prosecution Chart (July 2023)
Southern California Chapter Unit Prosecution Chart as of July 2023.
CA2 Remands for BIA to Determine Whether Petitioners Received Notice Required to Trigger Frivolous Asylum Claim Bar
The court remanded for the BIA to determine whether the IJ made factual findings sufficient to support the notice required to trigger the permanent reentry bar that applies to noncitizens who file frivolous asylum claims after receiving notice of that consequence. (Ud Din v. Garland, 6/30/23)
EOIR to Relocate Chicago Immigration Court’s Main Location
EOIR issued a notice that the Chicago Immigration Court’s main location at 525 W. Van Buren Street will close for relocation on July 13, 2023. During the closure, scheduled detained and non-detained hearings will take place at the Chicago Immigration Court’s satellite location.
Practice Alert: Supreme Court Decision on Biden Administration’s Immigration Enforcement Guidance Not Yet in Effect
AILA provides a practice alert on the effective date of the Supreme Court’s decision in USA v. Texas, a case concerning the Biden Administration’s immigration enforcement guidance.
CA9 Says BIA Properly Found That Petitioner’s California Drug Conviction Was a Particularly Serious Crime
The court found that the BIA properly applied Matter of Y–L– to conclude that the petitioner’s conviction in California for possession of cocaine for sale was a particularly serious crime that barred withholding of removal. (Park v. Garland, 6/29/23)
Resources on Florida Anti-immigrant Bills
This page includes resources related to recently passed Florida legislation targeting immigrants.
Litigation Timeline for Texas and Louisiana Challenge to President Biden’s 2021 Prosecutorial Discretion Memo
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to challenge the 2021 Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law memo.
State Courts Affect Applications for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
AILA Law Journal author Madelyn Cox-Guerra shares a bit about her recent article which focused on state court treatment of families as it relates to children seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile Status; she hopes the article will spur more research and advocacy.
CA8 Says Petitioner’s Due Process Rights Were Not Violated When IJ Continued Her Case Instead of Terminating It
The court found that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the continuation of her case rather than its termination when the IJ determined that the petitioner’s humanitarian parole would not expire for another two months. (Brizuela v. Garland, 6/27/23)
CA9 Says Petitioner’s Misrepresentations About His Citizenship to Police Officers Did Not Render Him Inadmissible
The court held that the petitioner’s misrepresentations about his citizenship to police officers in order to avoid removal proceedings did not render him inadmissible, and thus he was not ineligible for adjustment of status under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). (Ramírez Muñoz v. Garland, 6/26/23)
CA4 Vacates Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Petitioner Where BIA Erred in Nexus Analysis
The court held that, in focusing on the reason why the MS-13 gang targeted the petitioner’s family members rather than on why the gang would target him if he returned to El Salvador, the IJ and BIA applied the incorrect legal standard for the nexus analysis. (A.G. v. Garland, 6/23/23)
ICE Open Forum at 2023 AILA Annual Conference
AILA shares a recording of the ICE Open Forum at the 2023 AILA Annual Conference and Webcast on Immigration Law in Orlando, FL.
Supreme Court Upholds President Biden’s Immigration Enforcement Plan
The U.S. Supreme Court found that Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to challenge the 2021 Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law memo. (United States v. Texas, 6/23/23)
SCOTUS: Biden Administration ICE Guidelines Withstand States’ Challenge
AILA welcomed the SCOTUS decision in U.S. v. Texas which upholds the prerogative of the executive branch to set agency guidelines; AILA President Farshad Owji called the decision a clear message, adding “The states that attempted to derail this commonsense approach were in the wrong.”
Advocacy Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Asylum Bar’s Changes to Expedited Removal Procedures
Several advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of asylum seekers challenging the government’s asylum eligibility bar, “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways.” (M.A., et al. v. Jaddou, et al., 6/23/23)
EOIR Open Forum at 2023 AILA Annual Conference
AILA’s EOIR Liaison Committee provides key takeways from the EOIR Open Forum at the 2023 AILA Annual Conference.
Supreme Court Says Offense “Relating to Obstruction of Justice” Under INA §101(a)(43)(S) Does Not Require Pending Investigation
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under INA §101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. (Pugin v. Garland, 6/22/23)
CA10 Finds That IJ and BIA Did Not Err in Invoking Frivolous-Asylum Bar in Same Proceeding as Frivolousness Finding
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the IJ erred in making a frivolousness finding as to the petitioner’s asylum application and invoking the statutory frivolous bar outlined in INA §208(d)(6) in the same proceeding. (Farnum v. Garland, 6/21/23)
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Citizen of Burkina Faso Who Feared Harm Based on His Political Opinions
The court held that because the IJ identified specific, cogent reasons to disbelieve the testimony of the petitioner, a citizen of Burkina Faso who feared harm due to his political opinions, sufficient evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. (Zongo v. Garland, 6/16/23)