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 Says Incorrect Standards Were Applied in Refusing to Excuse Late Asylum Application
The IJ applied incorrect legal standards when finding Petitioner had not shown changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his late application and the IJ erred in finding that the application was not filed in a reasonable time period. (Singh v. Holder, 9/8/11)
CA3 Sets Standard for Determining Whether LPR Is an Applicant for Admission
The court held that the standard for determining whether an LPR should be treated as an applicant for admission, and thus paroled for prosecution, is probable cause to believe he has committed a crime under INA §212(a)(2). (Doe v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 9/8/11)
CA6 Joins Sister Circuits in Upholding Matter of Acosta Hidalgo
The court upheld Acosta Hidalgo’s interpretation of 8 CFR §1239.2(f), that removal proceedings may only be terminated under that provision where DHS affirmatively attests to the alien’s prima facie eligibility for naturalization. (Shewchun v. Holder, 9/8/11)
CA5 Rejects BIA’s Interpretation of CSPA in Matter of Wang
The court held that the automatic conversion and priority date retention provisions of INA §203(h)(3) unambiguously apply to the entire universe of petitions described in INA §203(h)(2), including fourth preference petitions. (Khalid v. Holder, 9/8/11)
CA10 Rejects Political Opinion and Social Group Claim in MS-13 Case
The court found that Salvadoran women aged 12 to 25 who have resisted gang recruitment is sufficiently particular for purposes of a social group claim, but found that the proposed group failed the social visibility test. (Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 9/7/11)
CA7 Remands Colombian/FARC Asylum Claims for Further Proceedings
The court found that the BIA inexplicably focused only on the FARC’s burning of Petitioner’s trucks in concluding he was not persecuted and rejected the Board’s finding that even if he was persecuted, it was not due to a protected ground. (Escobar v. Holder, 9/7/11)
Audio: AILA Issues a Spanish Language PSA
In response to the White House announcement on 8/18/11, and in conjunction with a written Consumer Advisory, AILA issued a Spanish language audio PSA that was distributed nationally to Hispanic radio outlets and also online media. This is the audio recording.
CA7 Recognizes Threat of “Honor Killing” as Basis for Social Group Claim
The court found that Petitioner is a member of the particular social group of women in Jordan who have flouted repressive moral norms and face a high risk of honor killing. (Sarhan v. Holder, 9/2/11)
CA8 Says Evidence of Alienage was Lawfully Obtained
The court found no need for an evidentiary hearing where the record did not support Petitioner’s belief that his arrest was racially motivated, and found no evidence that Petitioner’s statements regarding alienage were involuntary. (Lopez-Gabriel v. Holder, 9/2/11)
CA6 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Decision to Enforce Removal Order
The court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the government’s act of enforcing a 1996 deportation order in 2009 amounted to a de facto final order of removal and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Casillas v. Holder, 9/2/11)
CA9 Limits CSPA Auto-Conversion and Priority Date Retention to F-2A Petitions
The court found reasonable the BIA’s decision in Matter of Wang that the CSPA under INA §203(h)(3) does not permit automatic conversion and/or priority date retention for derivative beneficiaries of F-3 and F-4 petitions. (De Osorio v. Mayorkas, 9/2/11)
Immigration Law Advisor, August 2011 (Vol. 5, No. 7)
Immigration Law Advisor, a legal publication from EOIR, with an article on subpoenas in Immigration Court, circuit court decisions for July 2011, and recent BIA precedent decisions.
DOJ OIL August 2011 Litigation Bulletin
DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) August 2011 Litigation Bulletin provides a summary of recent Federal court decisions, an update on pending cases and issues, discussions on Delgado v. Holder and Prestol-Espinal v. Attorney General, and more.
Owner of an Iowa Roofing Company Pleads Guilty to Harboring Undocumented Individuals
ICE press release announcing that Samira Zuniga, the owner Xtreme Construction, pleaded guilty in federal court to harboring and conspiring to harbor undocumented individuals who were arrested while working on a residential roofing job in April of 2011.
Deportation Without Due Process
NILC and partners provide a report that synthesizes information obtained via FOIA about “stipulated removal”, which allowed immigration officials to deport over 160,000 non-U.S. citizens without ever giving them their day in court.
CA9 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Relief Despite BIA Remand on Collateral Issue
The court found jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of relief where the BIA remands under 8 CFR §1003.1(d)(6) for completion of background checks that are required before alternative relief may be granted. (Li v. Holder, 9/1/11)
CA3 Says INA §236(c) Only Authorizes Detention for a Reasonable Time
The court held that INA §236(c) authorizes detention only for a reasonable period of time at which point the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires the government to show that continued detention is required to further the statute’s purpose. (Diop v. ICE, 9/1/11)
VOICE: September/October 2011
AILA kicks off the fall season with a new issue of VOICE: An Immigration Dialogue! Be sure to check out articles on the U.S. Military’s Selective Service requirement, the long wait for immigrant visas, our new “Pass the Mic” and “Poetic Justice” columns, and more!
CA7 Dismisses Petition for Review of U Visa Denial for Lack of Jurisdiction
The court found no jurisdiction to review the denial of Petitioner’s I-192 waiver as an ancillary decision made outside removal proceedings, and reaffirmed its prior holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review a U visa denial. (Torres-Tristan v. Holder, 9/1/11)
CA11 Upholds Adverse Credibility Determination in Venezuelan Asylum Case
The court upheld the adverse credibility finding where Petitioner claimed to be present at a rally where his mother was killed but presented no evidence that he was politically active, at the rally, or detained and beaten after. (Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 8/31/11)
Attorney and Client Found Guilty in Immigration Fraud Case
ICE news release announcing that Michael Choi, an attorney who is a naturalized citizen from Korea, and his client were convicted of conspiring to violate federal immigration laws. Choi was also convicted of making false statements to the government and tax evasion.
CA8 Applies “Strong Presumption” of Service; Upholds In Absentia Order
In a case governed by the IIRIRA transitional rules, the court found that Petitioners failed to rebut the “strong presumption” of service where notice of proceedings was sent via certified mail and the record contained proof of delivery. (Patel v. Holder, 8/31/11)
CA9 Finds California 2nd Degree Burglary Is Not an Aggravated Felony or CIMT
The court held that 2nd-degree burglary under Cal. Penal Code §459 is not categorically an aggravated felony and that the BIA misread 9th Cir. case law in concluding that it categorically qualifies as a CIMT. (Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, 7/8/11; amended 8/31/11)
CA10 Says Padilla Does Not Apply Retroactively
The court found that although Padilla creates a new constitutional duty to inform a non-citizen criminal defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea, it does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. (U.S. v. Hong, 8/30/11)
ICE FAQs on the Prioritization of Enforcement Efforts
ICE FAQs on the Administration’s August 18, 2011 announcement regarding a new process to ensure that immigration enforcement resources are focused on high priority cases.