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
CA7 to Rehear Asylum Case on Particular Social Group En Banc
The court ordered that Cece v. Holder – a decision in an asylum case which held the petitioner’s proposed social group lacked the required common, immutable characteristic - be reheard en banc. (Cece v. Holder, 5/31/12)
DHS Proposes New “Social Distinction” Test in Asylum Case
DHS proposed a new "social distinction” test for asylum cases in its brief in Valdiviezo-Galdamez, on remand from a Third Circuit decision which rejected the BIA’s "social visibility" and "particularity" tests for determining if a particular social group exists.
ICE Statistics on Prosecutorial Discretion - May 29, 2012
ICE statistics on prosecutorial discretion, as of May 29, 2012, provided to AILA, including the number of cases reviewed, number of cases identified for a grant of PD, number of cases granted deferred action and stays of removal.
CA8 Remands Case for CIMT Analysis Under Silva-Trevino
Applying the “realistic probability” analysis set forth in Silva-Trevino, the court concluded that the petitioner’s conviction for providing a false name to a peace officer was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. (Bobadilla v. Holder, 5/29/12)
Law Professors on Executive Action for DREAMers
A 5/28/12 letter from law professors addressing issues that may arise as agencies and officials within the Executive Branch consider various administrative options in cases involving potential beneficiaries of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act.
CA4 Upholds Matter of Rojas on Mandatory Detention under § 236(c)
The court found that the petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 236(c), despite the fact he was not taken into federal custody immediately upon his release from state custody. (Hosh v. Lucero, 5/25/12)
CA11 Strikes Down Post-Departure Bar Regulation
The court held that the departure bar in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d), which prohibits the BIA from considering a motion to reopen filed by a noncitizen who is outside of the U.S., impermissibly conflicts with the INA § 240(c)(7)(A). (Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 5/23/12)
CA11 Remands §209(c) Waiver Denial
The court found that the IJ and BIA erred by failing to consider country conditions in Sudan and the hardship the petitioner would suffer if removed when they denied his waiver application under INA § 209(c). (Makir-Marwil v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 5/22/12)
CRCL Newsletter, May 2012
DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) May 2012 newsletter with information on Secure Communities, Asian-Pacific American Heritage month and more.
CA3 Says Re-entry Did Not Start New Period of Continuous Residence
The court held that the petitioner was not eligible for cancellation because a drug offense triggered the stop-time rule, and that a new period of continuous residence did not start when he re-entered the U.S. after a two-day trip. (Nelson v. Att’y Gen., 5/22/12)
Supreme Court Says Child Cannot Rely on Parent’s Status and Residence to Establish Cancellation Eligibility
The Court upheld the BIA’s interpretation of the criteria for cancellation of removal, holding that a noncitizen living in the U.S. as a child cannot count his parent’s years of residence or time as a LPR to satisfy §240A(a). (Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, 5/21/12)
CA7 on Tolling of 90-Day Period for Filing a Motion to Reopen
The court held that a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the BIA’s initial dismissal of an appeal, regardless of whether a motion to reconsider is pending. (Sarmiento v. Holder, 5/21/12)
Administration Misses Opportunity to Protect Immigrants Held in Detention
New regulations issued by DOJ exclude immigrants in DHS facilities from the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). AILA believes this was a missed opportunity to protect the estimated 400,000 individuals held in immigration detention facilities each year.
CA11 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Battered-Spouse Determination
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review whether the petitioner was “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” for the purposes of §240A(b)(2), holding that it is a discretionary determination. (Bedoya-Melendez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 5/17/12)
DOJ Press Release on Prison Rape Elimination Act
DOJ press release on the release a final rule to prevent, detect and respond to sexual abuse in confinement facilities, in accordance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), but which excludes over 400,000 immigrants in DHS facilities from protection.
IJ Grants Asylum to Liberian Woman Captured During War
In an unpublished decision, the immigration judge held that the respondent demonstrated that she suffered past persecution in Liberia on account of her membership in the particular social group of Liberian women who were captured during the war and used as sex slaves.
Presidential Memo on Prison Rape Elimination Act
Presidential memorandum expressing Obama Administration's conclusion that PREA applies to all Federal confinement facilities, including those operated by executive departments and agencies other than DOJ, whether administered by Federal Government or a private organization.
White House Domestic Policy Council Director’s Speech at Brookings
White House speech transcript of 5/15/12 speech from Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Munoz at The Hamilton Project at Brookings Institution where she talked about DREAM Act, immigrant entrepreneurs, stateside waivers and many other important immigration issues.
BIA Finds Jurisdiction Over Appeal By Unlawfully Removed Respondent
The BIA held that it has jurisdiction to review the appeal of an alien who was unlawfully removed in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6(a), but concluded the respondent’s accomplice conviction rendered him removable. Matter of Diaz-Garcia, 25 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 2012)
Minutes from NBC Meeting with AILA (5/11/12)
Meeting minutes from the AILA NBC Liaison Committee 5/11/12 meeting with NBC, including information on new NBC initiatives, an updated organizational chart, EADs in cases administratively closed under prosecutorial discretion, I-485s, AWA, change of address, and more.
ICE Directive on Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention
ICE directive on sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention, dated 5/11/12. The directive covers procedures for preventing sexual abuse of persons in ICE custody, timely notification of allegations, response and intervention, and monitoring incidents.
CA2 on Embezzlement By a Bank Employee
The court rejected the BIA’s conclusion that the conviction for embezzlement by a bank employee was an aggravated felony, noting that the facts the petitioner pled to did not indicate whether he acted with intent to defraud. (Akinsade v. Holder, 5/1/12, amended 5/11/12)
BIA Remands I-130 Appeals in Same-sex Marriage Cases
In four unpublished decisions, the BIA remanded I-130 appeals brought by same-sex couples for USCIS to clarify whether the marriages were valid under state law and whether the beneficiary would be considered a "spouse" under the INA, absent DOMA. Courtesy of Masliah & Soloway.
CA1 Finds Malicious Destruction of Property Is a CIMT
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that malicious destruction of property under Massachusetts law qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude and that as a result, the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. (Palmeira v. Holder, 5/10/12)
CA5 Finds Padilla Cannot Be Applied Retroactively
The court reversed the district court’s ruling, held that Padilla, announced a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure and thus does not apply retroactively, and noted that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court. (United States v. Amer, 5/9/12)