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 Transfers Case to BIA to Consider Contested Issues and Conduct Factfinding
Under INA §242(b)(4)(A), the court cannot rely on the district court’s record in reviewing habeas cases converted to petitions for review. As there was also no administrative record, the court transferred the case to the BIA to resolve contested issues. (Rafaelano v. Wilson, 12/20/06)
CA1 Finds DHS Rebutted Presumption of Well-Founded Fear in Cambodian Claim
The court held that where a DOS report demonstrates fundamental changes in specific circumstances that form the basis of the presumptive well-founded fear, the report is, in and of itself, sufficient to rebut the presumption. (Chreng v. Gonzales, 12/19/06)
CA7 Says NTA That Does Not Specify Date and Time of Hearing is Not Defective
CA7 held that the notice to appear, which did not specify the date and time of his hearing, taken together with the immigration court-issued hearing notice, satisfied the requirements of INA §239(a)(1) and did not deprive the IJ of jurisdiction over his case. (Dababneh v. Gonzales, 12/19/06)
CA4 Finds “Hiding” Is Not a Reasonable Internal Relocation Option
CA4 found BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner could reasonably relocate internally was not supported by substantial evidence, concluding it unreasonable to find that Petitioner was undisturbed while in hiding in her home country for a four-year period. (Bockou Essohou v. Gonzales, 12/15/06)
CA6 Finds No Abuse of BIA Discretion in Denying Special Motion to Reopen
CA6 held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s special motion to reopen under 8 CFR §1003.44. The court agreed that there were no proceedings to reopen after Petitioner “accidentally” executed an outstanding deportation order. (Mansour v. Gonzales, 12/14/06)
CA2 Holds IJ Erred in Denying Motion to Rescind In Absentia Order
The court held that the IJ erred by failing to adequately explain why Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of receipt and by conflating his claims for rescission on grounds of nonreceipt and exceptional circumstances. (Alrefae v. Chertoff, 12/14/06)
CA5 Says Stop-Time Rule of INA §240A(d) May Be Applied Retroactively
The court held that Congress’s intent that the stop-time rule be applied retroactively to transitional cases was clearly conveyed in IIRAIRA §309(c)(5). (Heaven v. Gonzales, 12/14/06)
CA5 Holds BIA Abused its Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen Based on IAC
CA5 held that the denial of the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel was an abuse of discretion, rejecting BIA’s conclusion that counsel’s admission that Petitioner falsely claimed U.S. citizenship was strategic and therefore, not ineffective.(Mai v. Gonzales, 12/13/06)
CA9 Finds a Refugee Is Subject to Removal Even if Status Is Not Terminated
CA9 concluded that, based on a plain reading the statute and deferring to the BIA’s interpretation in In re Smirko, a person who arrives in the U.S. as a refugee may be removed even if refugee status has never been terminated under INA §207(c)(4). (Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 12/12/06)
ICE Memorandum on Discretion in Custody Determinations for Cases of Extreme or Severe Medical Concern
ICE released a memorandum dated 12/11/06 on prosecutorial discretion when making custody determinations for aliens (adults and/or juveniles) who have severe medical conditions transferring from hospitals and social services or law enforcement agencies.
CA11 Says IJ Abused Discretion in Refusing to Grant Continuance for 245(i) Beneficiary
The court held that the IJ abused his discretion in refusing to continue a case where Petitioner had an approved labor certification, a pending visa petition and an immediately available visa number. (Haswanee v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 12/8/06)
CA2 Expands its Interpretation of “Questions of Law” under INA §242(a)(2)(D)
The court granted rehearing and held that while the term “questions of law” is not limited to issues of statutory construction, it may not review challenges to factual determinations or the exercise of discretion. (Chen v. DOJ, 12/7/06)
CA2 Remands for Individualized Showing of Reliance on Availability of §212(c) Relief
The court remanded to the BIA to determine whether Petitioner relied on the continuing availability of §212(c) relief when he delayed filing an affirmative §212(c) application following his conviction by jury trial prior to IIRAIRA. (Wilson v. Gonzales, 12/7/06)
CA1 Remands §212(h) Waiver Denial
The court vacated the denial of Petitioner’s motion to reconsider and remanded the case for clarification of the BIA’s rationale for accepting the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s §212(h) waiver. (Onwuamaegbu v. Gonzales, 12/6/06)
CA9 Rejects Retroactivity Challenge to “Stop-Time” Rule Under INA §240A(d)(1)(B)
CA9 held that INA §240A(d)(1)(B), which stops accrual of continuous residence upon commission of certain crimes for purposes of cancellation, is not impermissibly retroactive where the petitioner was not eligible for relief at the time of his plea. (Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 12/6/06)
BIA Denies Motion to Reconsider Based on Prior Arguments and Authority
The BIA held that a motion to reconsider must be supported by material error; where there is new law, an explanation of its material effect; and, for affirmation without opinion, a showing that errors were raised on appeal. Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006)
Supreme Court Issues Favorable Ruling in Drug Possession Case
On 12/5/06, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that drug possession convictions that qualify as state felonies, but would not qualify as felonies under federal law, are not “aggravated felonies” as defined under INA § 101(a)(43)(B). (Lopez v. Gonzales, 12/5/06)
CA2 Finds Mauritanian Asylum Applicant Not Firmly Resettled in Mali
The court held that the IJ erroneously placed the burden of proof regarding the question of resettlement on the Petitioner and that the IJ’s firm resettlement conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence. (Makadji v. Gonzales, 12/5/06)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Ukrainian Prosecutor and His Family
The court held that being a prosecutor is not an unchangeable or fundamental attribute. The court stated that it was Petitioner’s conduct as a prosecutor, and not his status as a member of such a purported social group that caused the alleged persecution. (Pavlyk v. Gonzales, 12/4/06)
CA11 Finds Habeas Proceedings Appropriate Means for Challenging the Existence of a Removal Order
CA11 held that INA §242(a)(5),making a petition for review the “sole and exclusive” means of review of an order of removal, does not apply where the existence of a removal order is challenged. The court remanded to the district court for habeas proceedings. (Madu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 12/1/06)
DHS Report on Treatment of ICE Detainees
A December 2006 DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit report addresses compliance with U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement Detention Standards at five detention facilities.
CA7 Remands for “Federal Felony Approach,” but Rejects §209(c) Waiver
CA7 found that because it had adopted the “hypothetical federal felony approach,” Petitioner’s heroin possession conviction would not bar asylum. It also upheld the determination that Petitioner was no longer a refugee eligible to adjust status under INA §209(c).(Gutnik v. Gonzales, 11/29/06)
CA2 Holds Pre-Conviction Time Served Counts Toward §212(c)’s Five-Year Bar
The court held that Petitioner was ineligible for relief under former INA §212(c) because he served more than five years for an aggravated felony, including pre-conviction detention. (Spina v. DHS, 11/28/06)
CA9 Holds No Abuse of Discretion in BIA’s Refusal to Reissue Decision
The court held that where the BIA complied with its own regulations when serving its notice of decision, it did not later abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen proceedings and reissue the decision despite Petitioner’s allegation of nonreceipt. (Singh v. Gonzales, 11/28/06)
CA8 Upholds Constitutionality of REAL ID’s Elimination of Habeas Review
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(D), which permits judicial review of all constitutional claims and questions of law in removal proceedings, is an adequate and effective substitute for habeas review to test the legality of a person’s detention. (Mohamed v. Gonzales, 11/27/06)