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 Finds Family Unity Is “Admitted in Any Status” for Cancellation Purposes
The court examined the plain meaning and legislative history of INA §240A, along with precedent, and concluded that acceptance into the Family Unity Program constituted “admitted in any status” for cancellation of removal purposes. (Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 7/24/06)
CA11 BIA Erred in Denying Motion to Reopen Colombian Asylum Case
The court found that the evidence in the motion to reopen was unavailable at the time of Petitioner's previous hearing and called into question the credibility of a witness who was material to the IJ’s assessment of her claim. (Verano-Velasco v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 7/24/06)
Objection Letter to New BIA Extension Policy by CLINIC, AILF, CAIR, and NIP
Effective August 14, 2006, the BIA is reducing the time period granted for a briefing extension from 21 to 15 days for detained persons with cases before the BIA. CLINIC, AILF, the CAIR Coalition, and the National Immigration Project submitted a letter objecting to this new policy.
CA8 Holds IJ Erred in Reopening Proceedings and Terminating Asylum
CA8 held that the IJ abused her discretion in reopening proceedings without explaining whether the documents in support of the motion were material and previously unavailable, and erred in terminating asylum based on documents that did not prove fraud. (Hailemichael v. Gonzales, 7/21/06)
AILA Backgrounder on Due Process, Civil Liberties, and Security
This updated AILA Backgrounder discusses the importance of upholding due process and civil liberties while enhancing our national security.
AILA Position Paper on Civil Liberties Restoration Act
Many new policies since 9/11 have not enhanced our security and have eroded our civil liberties. AILA strongly supports the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which seeks to roll back the most egregious post-9/11 policies and strike a balance between security needs and liberty interests.
CA8 Holds Expedited Removal Proceedings Not Retroactive
The court held that the application of expedited removal procedures under INA §238(b) to Petitioner was not impermissibly retroactive. Petitioner’s failure to respond to the government’s NOI precluded court review of his due process claim. (Gonzalez v. Chertoff, 7/20/06)
CA2 Asks BIA to Clarify Standards for Economic Persecution
The court remanded for the BIA to clarify the standard it applied in determining that Petitioner’s treatment did not constitute economic persecution. (Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 7/20/06)
CA3 Finds Refugee Who Adjusts to LPR Status Is Subject to Removal
The court concluded that the INA allows for a person who entered the country as a refugee and later adjusted his status to LPR to be placed in removal proceedings even though his refugee status was never terminated. (Romanishyn v. Atty. Gen. of U.S., 7/20/06)
CRS Issues Report Comparing Enforcement Provisions in H.R. 4437 and S.2611
Congressional Research Service report comparing enforcement provisions in H.R. 4437, S. 2611 and current law.
CA2 Overturns Adverse Credibility Finding in Forced Sterilization Case
The court held that the IJ’s finding that Petitioner failed to testify about his wife’s sterilization at his first asylum hearing did not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. (Kim v. Gonzales, 7/19/06)
CA3 Finds Gay Argentine Suffered Past Persecution by Police
The court found that the treatment Petitioner suffered at the hands of the police, which occurred at least 20 times over several years, was persecution, even though he did not suffer severe injuries nor was he ever detained more than 12 hours. (Maldonado v. Atty. Gen. of U.S., 7/18/06)
CA3 Discusses “Particularly Serious Crime” Bar to Withholding of Removal
The court held that an offense must be an aggravated felony in order to be classified as a particularly serious crime and that the IJ erred in failing to consider only the loss attached to the fraud count for which Petitioner was convicted. (Alaka v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 7/18/06)
CA9 Remands Motion to Reopen for BIA Abuse of Discretion
The court held that the BIA’s failure to identify and evaluate the factors favorable to Petitioner’s motion to reopen, which presented new evidence of hardship for cancellation of removal, was an abuse of discretion. (Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 07/18/06)
CA2 Finds Record Shows Worsening Conditions in Belarus
The court held that the IJ and BIA erred in overlooking evidence that conditions in Belarus deteriorated between 1996 and 2000 and remanded the withholding claim. (Serafimovich v. Ashcroft, 7/17/06)
CA6 Invalidates Conviction For Failure to Prove Vacatur Solely for Immigration Purposes (Updated 11/14/06)
The court remanded the case to the BIA to vacate Petitioner’s order of removal, holding that the government had not met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner’s conviction remained valid for immigration purposes. (Pickering v. Gonzales, 10/4/06)
CA7 Refuses to Apply Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine to Person in Custody
The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine because Petitioner had surrendered to immigration authorities and remained in DHS custody. (Gutierrez-Almazan, 7/17/06)
BIA to Follow Revised Practice Regarding First Briefing Extensions
BIA notice advising on revised general practice regarding briefing deadlines for cases before the Board where the individual is detained, reducing the amount of time granted for first briefing extensions in detainee cases and the number of extension requests allowed. (71 FR 40151, 7/14/06)
ICE Memo on Confiscation and Return of Original Documents
This July 14, 2006 memorandum from John P. Torres, Acting Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, outlines the procedures for confiscation and return of original documents for persons in removal proceedings.
USCIS Letter on Running of INA § 212(a)(9)(B) Inadmissibility Period
A 1/26/09 letter from Lynden Melmed, USCIS Chief Counsel and a 7/14/06 letter from Robert Divine, USCIS Chief Counsel, confirm when the INA §212(a)(9)(B) inadmissibility period begins to run, and how the period is affected by parole or lawful admission under INA §212(d)(3).
BIA Affirms Asylum for Former Child Soldier
In an unpublished decision, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision to grant asylum, noting the respondent established a well-founded fear of persecution based on his Acholi tribal membership, as well as the possibility he could be identified as a former child soldier.
CA2 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Denial of §212(i) Waiver
The court held that for purposes of a waiver under INA §212(i), a finding of a lack of extreme hardship is a discretionary determination, which is barred from judicial review under INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i). (Zhang v. Gonzales, 7/12/06)
USCIS Memo on Issuance of NTAs
A 7/11/06 memo from Michael Aytes, USCIS Associate Director, Domestic Operations, advising of an agreement with ICE regarding issuing an NTA and handling cases in which the beneficiary or applicant appears to be removable, including where benefit applications have been denied.
CA2 Remands for BIA to Develop Standards on “Frivolousness”
The court found that substantial evidence supported the negative credibility finding but remanded the IJ’s finding of frivolousness and asked the BIA to formulate standards for deciding when an asylum seeker’s application is frivolous. (Liu v. DOJ, 7/11/06)
CA5 Holds No Jurisdiction to Review “Extreme Cruelty” Determination
CA5 held that INA §242(a)(2)(B) barred jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Petitioner had not suffered “extreme cruelty” by her USC spouse for purposes of “special rule” cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(2)(A)(i)(I). (Wilmore v. Gonzales, 7/5/06)