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 Shares Concern About Representation of Immigrants
AILA statement on a report from the New York Immigrant Representation Study that shows without a right to appointed counsel in immigration court, many immigrants represent themselves in removal proceedings with unsuccessful outcomes; others have inadequate representation.
Accessing Justice: The Availability and Adequacy of Counsel in Immigration Proceedings
A report from the New York Immigrant Representation Study that compares case outcomes based on key factors such as whether the immigrant was detained or non-detained, had representation, and whether or not the representation was considered adequate.
CA9 Holds Petitioner was Legitimated Under Salvadoran Law
The court found that the Petitioner, born out-of-wedlock, failed to establish a claim of derivative citizenship through his mother, because the subsequent marriage of his parents established his paternity by legitimation. (Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 12/19/11)
CA7 Upholds District Court’s Revocation of Citizenship
The court agreed with the district court’s finding that the defendant illegally procured his citizenship, noting he lacked the requisite good moral character due to two controlled substances violations committed during the relevant period. (U.S. v. Suarez, 12/16/11)
ABA Commends DHS on Prosecutorial Discretion, Suggests Further Steps
Letter from the ABA to DHS commending the exercise of prosecutorial discretion with respect to deportation and removal cases, and recommending additional steps to ensure fairness and consistency as the program is implemented.
CA7 Holds Voluntary Departure Regulations Are Not Retroactive
The court held that current regulatory voluntary departure warnings do not apply retroactively and found no due process violation under the former rules where there was no penalty for failure to depart if the alien did not pay bond. (Bachynskyy v. Holder, 12/15/11)
Practice Alert: Denver Prosecutorial Discretion Pilot Program (Updated 12/14/11)
AILA Colorado Chapter practice alert outlining the implementation of the prosecutorial discretion pilot program in Denver, including scope of review, criteria, procedures, tips for presenting additional evidence, and rescheduling cases on the non-detained docket.
CA7 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial
The court found jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of a continuance, noting that such decisions do not implicate the merits of a final order but instead defer resolution of the merits so that the process can be completed with integrity. (Calma v. Holder, 12/13/11)
Supreme Court Rejects §212(c) Comparable Grounds Rule
In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the BIA’s comparable grounds rule, as applied to applications for §212(c) relief in deportation proceedings, is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. (Judulang v. Holder, 12/12/11)
CA7 Finds Actual Reliance on §212(c), Remands for Hearing
The court refused to apply the repeal of INA §212(c) retroactively to Petitioner, where he demonstrated actual reliance on the availability of a §212(c) waiver by affirmatively abandoning his right to pursue a JRAD. (Khodja v. Holder, 12/12/11)
CA1 Remands on Equitable Tolling and Ten-Year Bar
The court found that the IJ inadequately explained her rationale for rejecting tolling and imposing the ten-year bar for overstaying voluntary departure and that her failure to engage with the petitioner’s arguments was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. (Romer v. Holder, 12/12/11)
CA5 on Requiring Corroborating Evidence from Asylum Applicants
The court held that the BIA reasonably interpreted its own regulations in Matter of S-M-J- when ruling asylum applicants can be required to provide reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence even when their testimony is credible. (Yang v. Holder, 12/12/11)
It’s All About Enforcement
Enforcement. It is the current catch-word of the presidential race. I hear it every day. Governor Perry said it in last night's debate. “I believe in enforcement. We must enforce the laws as they are on the books.“ I agree with him. Bet you never thought you'd hear me say that. But yes, I agre
CA11 Vacates Denial of FGM Asylum Claim from Senegal
The court found that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to Petitioner’s claim when it found she could relocate within Senegal to avoid being beaten or killed for attempting to protect her U.S. citizen daughter from FGM. (Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen, 12/8/11)
OCC Baltimore Notice on Prosecutorial Discretion Review
OCC Baltimore issued a notice regarding the prosecutorial discretion review and administrative closure decision making process. OCC does not plan to move for administrative closure over a party's objection and offers instruction for declining administrative closure
CA9 Allows IJ to Consider Pleading-Stage Admission in Establishing Removability
Following Perez-Mejia, the court held that the IJ was entitled to rely on Petitioner’s pleading-stage admission that his drug offense involved methamphetamine and that therefore, he was convicted of a removable offense. (Pagayon v. Holder, 12/8/11)
CA9 Reaffirms California First-Degree Burglary as an Aggravated Felony
The court held that Petitioner’s conviction of first-degree burglary is an aggravated felony as established by the state court’s abstract of judgment. The court also rejected Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (Kwong v. Holder, 12/7/11)
BIA Says Adjustment under Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act Is an Admission
The BIA held that the respondent was admitted to the U.S. when he adjusted status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, and was thus subject to removal under INA § 237(a) following a drug trafficking conviction. Matter of Espinosa Guillot, 25 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2011)
CA5 on Habeas Statute Custody Requirement
The court found that the petitioner, who had been deported to Mexico pursuant to a final order of removal, was not considered “in custody” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Merlan v. Holder, 12/6/11)
EOIR Announces Additional Features to 1-800 Number
EOIR announcement that the case information system (1-800 number) will reinstate the “pound” key (#) and “star” key (*) functions beginning 12/12/11.
TRAC Report Finds ICE is Targeting Fewer Criminals in Deportation Proceedings
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) found that of ICE deportation proceedings initiated during July through September 2011, only 13.8% of the individuals were charged with having engaged in criminal activities.
CA4 Upholds Adverse Credibility in Cameroonian Asylum Claim
Over dissent, the court upheld the adverse credibility finding based on the inconsistency arising from Petitioner’s eviction notice suggesting she was not in hiding as she claimed and the omission in her application of her role in the SCNC. (Djadjou v. Holder, 12/5/11)
CA1 Upholds Denial of I-751 Hardship Waiver
The court upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and conclusion that Petitioner’s marriage was not entered into in good faith where petitioner and his ex-wife gave vastly divergent descriptions of their wedding day. (McKenzie-Francisco v. Holder, 12/5/11)
CA3 Says BIA Erred in Making Unqualified Conclusions on CAT “Acquiescence”
The court found that the BIA incorrectly concluded that a number of specific circumstances cannot constitute government acquiescence and that it improperly ignored evidence of the likelihood of torture. (Pieschacon-Villegas v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 12/5/11)
BIA Grants Cancellation of Removal to Mother of Four
In an unpublished decision, the BIA held that exceptional and extremely unusual hardship would occur for the respondent’s four young children if she was removed, noting the respondent would lose her job and support network and had no savings. Courtesy of Campbell Cooke.