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
Human Rights First Report on the U.S. Asylum System
Human Rights First issued a report, "How to Repair the Asylum System: Blueprint for the Next Administration," which includes recommendations on detention, gender-based persecution, and the one-year filing deadline for filing an asylum application.
CA2 Says Second I-751 Filed After Termination of Status Does Not Restore Status
The court found that Petitioner’s status was terminated when he failed to appear with his wife at the I-751 interview and that the filing of a second I-751 petition did not restore his status. (Severino v. Mukasey, 12/3/08)
CA1 Refuses to Equitably Toll Deadline for In Absentia Motion
The court found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient due diligence to justify equitable tolling of the motion to reopen deadline for in absentia removal orders. (Fustaguio do Nascimento v. Mukasey, 12/1/08)
CA9 Rejects Equal Protection Claim by Petitioner with State Pardon for Controlled Substance Conviction
The court holds the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the absence of a waiver for inadmissible aliens with a state pardon is wholly irrational so as to violate equal protection. (Aguilera-Montero v. Mukasey, 12/1/08)
Immigration Law Advisor, November 2008 (Vol. 2, No. 11)
Immigration Law Advisor with an article on U.S. citizenship law, federal court activity for October 2008, AG/BIA precedent decisions, and legislative and regulatory updates.
CA3 Remands Denial of MTR for Asylum Claim Based on One-Child Policy
The court noted that the BIA must consider the evidence and arguments set forth in motions to reopen and found that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to identify or discuss statements and evidence in support of Petitioners’ motions to reopen. (Zheng v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 11/26/08)
Supreme Court Will Review Stay Standard
The Supreme Court granted certiori in Nken v. Mukasey and will review the standard governing a stay of removal pending consideration of a petition for review.
CA4 Finds IJ Erred in Denying Asylum as a Matter of Discretion
The court set forth a list of non-exhaustive factors that IJs should consider when determining if an individual merits asylum as a matter of discretion.(Zuh v. Mukasey, 11/25/08)
BIA Holds IJ Has Duty to Alert Pro Se Applicant to Avenues for Relief
In an unpublished decision, the BIA held that the IJ had a duty to develop the record on the potential hardship of the applicant’s removal on his son and to alert the applicant to all avenues of relief, which he failed to do with regard to voluntary departure. Courtesy of Robert Carpenter.
EOIR Information Collection on Forms EOIR-42A and EOIR-42B
EOIR issued an information collection on Form EOIR-42A, Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents, and Form EOIR-42B, Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents. Comments are due 12/22/08. (73 FR 70675, 11/21/08)
CA11 Discusses What Rises to Persecution
CA11 found no jurisdiction to review untimely filed asylum applications. Being forced to pay for government-provided education, or evidence that activists with similar political views were arrested and detained, did not rise to the level of persecution. (Lei v. Attorney General, 11/20/08)
CA9 Denies Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Amends Opinion in Kalilu
CA9 denied the petition for rehearing en banc and made minor amendments to its earlier opinion on eligibility for adjustment of status. The court remanded the determination of a frivolous asylum application in light of Matter of Y-L-. (Kalilu v. Mukasey, 11/20/08)
CA9 Holds Undisputed Admission of Entry Date Satisfies One-Year Deadline
Finding that it had jurisdiction to determine the timeliness of the asylum application as a question of law, CA9 held that a judicial admission of an entry date within one year of filing an asylum application was an undisputed fact. (Hakopian v. Mukasey, 11/19/08)
CA8 Upholds Finding of Improved Conditions in Mauritania; Rejects Asylum
CA8 held that significant discrepancies in the record and lack of evidence supported IJ’s adverse credibility determination. It upheld the IJ’s determination that improved conditions in Mauritania rebutted any presumption of a well-founded fear based on past harm. (Sow v. Mukasey, 11/19/08)
CA9 Overturns One-Year Deadline Denial in Iranian Asylum Case
The court found that it has jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of the asylum application because it was a mixed question of law and fact.(Khunaverdiants v. Mukasey, 11/18/08)
CA6 Upholds Negative Credibility Finding Based on Blatant Overstatement
The court noted that the failure to include every detail in an asylum application should not be fatal to an asylum claim, but held that blatant overstatement of the dangers in the Ivory Coast was sufficient to support a negative credibility determination. (Kaba v. Mukasey, 11/13/08)
CA2 Vacates Adverse Credibility and Persecutor Bar in Russian Claim
The court could not determine the basis for the adverse credibility determination and remanded. The court also held that substantial evidence did not support the persecutor bar. (Balachova v. Mukasey, 11/12/08)
CA10 Finds AG’s Interpretation of Statue to Allow Indefinite Detention Reasonable
CA10 vacates the habeas grant and remands, giving deference tothe AG’s reading of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) as authorizing detention beyond 90 days of limited classes of aliens, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s earlier contrary interpretation. ((Hernandez-Carrera v. Carlson, 11/12/08)
CA9 Remands for Habeas Review of Citizenship Claim Prior to Final Order of Removal
The court reverses the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and remands, finding that the petitioner does not have to wait until a final removal order is issued before he can secure habeas review of his citizenship claim. (Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 11/10/08)
CA10 Upholds MTR Asylum Denial Based on Change in Personal Circumstances
CA10 upheld the BIA finding of failure to present new evidence of changed conditions in China re coercive population control measures. It also held that a change in personal circumstances, a fourth pregnancy, could not support an untimely motion to reopen. (Wei v. Mukasey, 11/7/08)
AG Establishes Framework to Determine whether Conviction is CIMT
The Attorney General established analytical framework for deciding if a conviction is a CIMT, using the categorical approach, and if the inquiry remains unresolved, examines the record of conviction and then if necessary, additional evidence. Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (AG 2008)
CA2 Finds Connecticut First Degree Larceny Is a CIMT
The court held that Connecticut first degree larceny for “defrauding a public community,” is a crime involving moral turpitude. (Mendez v. Mukasey, 11/6/08)
AILA Liaison/NBC Q&As (11/06/08)
On 11/6/2008, NBC answered questions on the following issues:I-765 adjudication in proceedings; proof of admission by SAW applicants; change of address; lockbox issues with I-765s for individuals granted TPS in proceedings; and I-864 RFEs. AILA Doc. No. 09010665.
CA11 Denies Asylum to Eritrean Army Deserter Based on Lack of Credibility
The court held that the record did not compel a finding of past persecution because substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility finding. (Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11/5/08)
CA9 Finds Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a) Does Not Require False Statement to be Material as an Element of the Offense
The court affirmed conviction concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a) does not require that false statements be “material” as an element of the offense. (United States of America v. Youssef, 11/5/08)