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
CA8 Holds IJ Improperly Excluded Expert Report and Testimony in Asylum Case
The court held that the IJ’s exclusion of experts’ reports and testimony likely affected the outcome of the asylum proceedings and resulted in the violation of Petitioner’s due process rights. (Tun v. Gonzales, 5/21/07)
CA9 Holds Time Served Under Recidivist Statute May Count Toward Prison Term for §212(c) Purposes
The court held that an IJ may include time served under a recidivist statute or other sentencing enhancement when considering eligibility for §212(c) relief. (Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales, 5/21/07)
CA6 Reverses IJ’s Adverse Credibility Finding; Recommends New IJ on Remand
The court found that the IJ focused on irrelevant and arguably nonexistent inconsistencies in making his adverse credibility finding. (Mapouya v. Gonzales, 5/18/07)
CA7 Holds Palestinian Is Citizen of Jordan Based on Admission at Hearing
The court upheld the IJ’s removal order to Jordan for a West Bank Palestinian, stating that it suspected that he was stateless, not a Jordanian citizen, based on West Bank history. (Zahren v. Gonzales, 5/17/07)
CA9 Finds BIA Error in AWO Where Petitioner Alleged “Procedural Irregularity” in IJ Proceedings
The court held that the BIA erred when it summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision, and thereby failed to consider and decide Petitioner’s claim that his statutory and constitutional right to counsel was violated. (Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 5/17/07)
CA9 Says Waiver of Inadmissibility Does Not Waive Continuous Residence for Legalization
CA9 upheld the denial of Petitioner’s legalization application. A waiver of inadmissibility would waive INA §212(a)(9)(A)(ii)(II) for departing under a deportation order, but would not cure the resulting lack of continuous residence since 1/1/82. (Pedroza-Padilla v. Gonzales, 5/15/07)
CA7 Remands Claim of Chinese Christian Where IJ Quizzed Applicant on Bible
The court reversed the adverse credibility determination holding that the IJ impermissibly relied on his perceived common knowledge about the Bible when he concluded that Petitioner had only a rudimentary knowledge of Christianity.(Jiang v. Gonzales, 5/14/07)
Tracking ICE’s Enforcement Agenda
A summary of ICE enforcement activities prepared by the Detention Watch network. (Courtesy Detention Watch Network.)
CA7 Says Pre-Conviction Detention May Be Counted Toward Prison Term for §212(c) Purposes (Updated 5/22/07)
The court denied the petition for review, holding that pre-conviction detention, which is credited as time served, may be counted toward the term of imprisonment when determining eligibility for §212(c) relief. (Moreno-Cebrero v. Gonzales, 5/10/07)
CA2 Denies §212(c) Relief Notwithstanding Concurrent AOS
The court held that AEDPA §440(d) barred Petitioner, who was deportable for an aggravated felony, from relief under former INA §212(c) notwithstanding a concurrent adjustment application. (Ruiz-Almanzar v. Ridge, 5/8/07)
CA9 Holds Expedited Removal Order Interrupts Continuous Physical Presence
The court held that an expedited removal order interrupts continuous physical presence in the U.S. for purposes of cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1). (Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 5/8/07)
CA9 En Banc Court Finds Jurisdiction to Review Removal Orders “Reinstated” by the BIA
Overruling Molino-Camacho v. Ashcroft, the en banc court found jurisdiction over a petition for review where the BIA reversed the IJ’s grant of asylum and ordered Petitioner to voluntarily depart. (Lolong v. Gonzales, 5/7/07)
CA8 Finds Past FGM Is Persecution and Basis for Asylum
The court joined the growing number of circuits holding that FGM rises to the level of persecution. CA8 held here that the persecution was on account of her membership in the particular social group of Somali females. (Hassan v. Gonzales, 5/7/07)
INS Juvenile Protocol Manual
This manual contains policy and guidance on issues related to the apprehension, processing, detention, and release of juvenile aliens.
CA10 Says IJ’s Finding of Deportability Constitutes a “Final Order” Under INA §242(a)(1)
The court held that an IJ must first either issue an order of removal or make a finding of deportability to confer it with appellate jurisdiction under INA 242(a)(1). (Sosa-Valenzuela v. Gonzales, 5/1/07)
CA10 Says INA §242(a)(2)(D) is Not an Independent Grant of Appellate Jurisdiction
CA10 held that its authority to review claims under INA 242(a)(2)(D) is constrained by INA 242(a)(1), which requires a final order of removal. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision to revoke a visa without a final order of removal. (Hamilton v. Gonzales, 5/1/07)
Immigration Law Advisor, April 2007 (Vol. 1, No. 4)
Immigration Law Advisor with an article on calculating “loss to the victim or victims” under section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the INA, an article on Second Circuit rules on permissible inferences and speculation, federal court activity and recent BIA decisions for March 2007, and a regulatory update.
CA3 Discusses Jurisdiction-Stripping and Transfer Provisions of REAL ID
In the context of §106 of the REAL ID Act, the court held that only challenges that directly implicate a removal order may be properly transferred. (Nnadika v. Att’y Gen., 4/27/07)
CA2 Upholds BIA’s Adverse Credibility Finding after Stipulated Remand
The court concluded that the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was not prohibited by the terms of CA2's stipulated remand, the regulatory scheme governing remands, or due process considerations. (Belortaja v. Gonzales, 4/27/07)
AILA/AILF Comment on the DOJ Proposed Rule on Jurisdiction and Venue in Removal Proceedings
AILA/AILF urge DOJ to reconsider proposed regulations regarding venue determinations for removal proceedings. The proposed rule fails to carry out its intended purpose of “greater clarity and consistency of interpretation” and does not adequately address the statutory language at 8 USC §1252(b)(2).
BIA Discusses "Frivolous" Asylum Determinations
The BIA held that IJs must address the question of frivolousness separately and that the applicant must be given sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim. Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007)
CA5 Allows Retroactive Application of IIRAIRA’s Change to Aggravated Felony Definition
CA5 held that the denial o relief from removal was an “action taken,” as described in IIRAIRA §321(c), which compelled the IJ to utilize the retroactive definition and find Petitioner’s conviction for harboring aliens to constitute an aggravated felony. (Garrido-Morato v. Gonzales, 4/24/07)
BIA Holds Willful Failure to Register by a Sex Offender Is a CIMT
The BIA held that willful failure to register by a sex offender who has been previously apprised of the obligation to register, in violation of section 290(g)(1) of the California Penal Code, is a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Tobar-Lobo, 24 I&N Dec. 143 (BIA 2007)
CA10 Finds Reinstatement of Prior Removal Order Impermissibly Retroactive
The court held that where a petitioner was deported, reentered, married a U.S. citizen and was granted adjustment of status prior to the effective date of IIRAIRA, DHS may not retroactively apply INA §241(a)(5) to reinstate a prior order of removal. (Valdez-Sanchez v. Gonzales, 4/23/07)
CA2 Dismisses Petition Transferred from District Court for Lack of Jurisdiction
The court found that transfer was not available under REAL ID because the petition was not pending when the Act became effective, the petition was untimely, and no constitutional issues were raised. (Wang v. DHS, 4/19/07)