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
Sentencing Advisory Guidelines Letter
Sample letter to U.S. Attorney requesting information germane to sentencing under advisory guidelines—should Defendant be convicted as charged—to advise Defendant on consequences of pleading guilty or requesting trial. (Criminal Procedure; Discovery or Supplementing Certified Administrative Record)
CA2 Reverses IJ’s Fake Document Finding in Chinese Asylum Claim
The court held that the IJ engaged in speculation and made improper inferences in concluding that Petitioner’s 1989 and 1998 marriage certificates were fake. (Li v. INS, 6/29/06)
CA2 Remands Chinese Asylum Claim Due to IJ Bias and Hostility
The court found that apart from flaws in the adverse credibility finding, remand was required because of the IJ’s hostility, noting that the IJ’s questioning was inappropriate and indicated a bias toward Chinese witnesses. (Huang v. Gonzales, 6/29/06)
BIA Finds Derivative Citizenship Where Paternity Not Legitimated By Marriage
The BIA held that where the respondent was born out of wedlock in Guyana and his natural parents were never married, his paternity was not established through legitimation, so he is not ineligible to obtain derivative citizenship. Matter of Lawrence Rowe, 23 I&N Dec. 962 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Reconciles Case Law on BIA Remands
The court reconciled two precedent decisions on when remand to the BIA would be futile, finding remand not appropriate when the court is confident that the agency would reach the same result upon a reconsideration cleansed of errors. (Lin v. Gonzales, 6/28/06)
CA11 Holds BIA Abused its Discretion in Summarily Dismissing Appeal
The court held that where the notice of appeal sets forth its basis, the BIA erred in summarily dismissing it solely because Petitioners indicated that they would file a supporting brief, but failed to do so or offer an explanation for not doing so. (Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 6/28/06)
CA11 Holds a Timely Filed Motion to Reopen Tolls Voluntary Departure Period
The court held that a timely filed motion to reopen tolls the period of voluntary departure to afford the opportunity for a ruling on the merits of the motion, without jeopardizing eligibility for benefits sought by overstaying the voluntary departure period. (Ugokwe v. Att’y Gen., 6/28/06)
EOIR OPPM 06-01: Fee Waiver Form
EOIR issues Interim Operating Policies and Procedure Memorandum (OPPM) 06-01: Fee Waiver Form, which requires Immigration Judges use the attached standard fee waiver order whenever waiving a fee, including in detained cases, pursuant to 8 CFR § 1003.24(d).
CA3 Holds a Person Already Removed from the U.S. Is Not “In Custody” for Habeas Jurisdiction
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a habeas petition filed after the petitioner had been removed from the U.S. because he was not “in custody” of DHS. (Kumarasamy v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 6/23/06)
CA3 Finds Jurisdiction to Stay Voluntary Departure Period
The court found jurisdiction to grant a stay of the voluntary departure period because there is no indication that Congress intended to eliminate such jurisdiction. (Obale v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 6/22/06)
Supreme Court Upholds Retroactive Application of Reinstatement of Removal (Updated 7/7/06)
The Court held INA §241(a)(5) applies to persons who illegally reentered prior to the effective date of IIRIRA and did not take any affirmative steps towards legalizing status, but declined to decide whether the provision applies retroactively. (Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 6/22/06)
CA3 Remands for Determination of Whether Vacated Conviction Stands for Immigration Purposes
The court held that the BIA erred in ignoring Petitioner's sole argument that he was no longer removable by virtue of his vacated conviction and remanded the case to the Board to determine whether the conviction still stands for immigration purposes. (Cruz v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA2 Remands Where BIA Granted Relief to Spouse on Same Facts
The court remanded to ensure that the denial of the wife's claim was not arbitrary in light of its grant of relief to the husband, where husband and wife feared persecution based on the birth of two children in the U.S. (Zhang v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA6 Refuses to Impute Parents’ Fraudulent Conduct to Their Minor Child
The court held that, for purposes of establishing inadmissibility under INA §212(a)(6)(c)(i), the BIA’s decision to impute the parents’ fraudulent conduct to their minor child is impermissible and an unreasonable interpretation of the INA. (Singh v. Gonzales, 6/21/06)
CA10 Discusses Grounds for Contesting Removal under the Visa Waiver Program
CA10 held that the district director did not err in removing Petitioner, who entered the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program, without first considering his self-petition for classification as a battered spouse and adjustment of status. (Schmitt v. Maurer, 6/20/06)
CA10 Amends Opinion Holding INA §245(i) Trumps §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)
The court amended its opinion but continued to hold that Congress intended to permit §245(i) adjustment of status for persons subject to the permanent bar under 212(a)(9)(C)(1)(i). (Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 6/19/06)
CA4 Vacates Removal Order Amid Discussion of “Date of Admission” Under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i)
The court held that the BIA erred in concluding that the “date of admission” under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i) may include the date of adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, when a person has previously been inspected and admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor. (Aremu v. Gonzales, 6/19/06).
CA2 Resolves Timing Issue for MTRs Based on Changed Conditions
The court held that for purposes of a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, the date the record was closed by the IJ is the date prior to which any evidence must be unavailable. (Norani v. Gonzales, 6/16/06)
CA1 Refuses to Reinstate Expired Period of Voluntary Departure
The court held that because INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i) bars jurisdiction to review a discretionary determination on voluntary departure, it did not have authority to create a new voluntary departure period or reinstate an expired one. (Onikoyi v. Gonzales, 6/16/06)
CA7 Holds IJ’s Refusal to Continue Hearing Resulted in Denial of Due Process
CA7 held that the hearing on the merits was fundamentally unfair in light of the improper withdrawal of Petitioner’s attorney, the attorney’s retention of Petitioner’s documents, and the IJ’s refusal to continue Petitioner’s hearing. (Gjeci v. Gonzales, 6/15/06)
EOIR Meets with Second Circuit Regarding Surge in Federal Appeals
BIA judges and IJs met with Second Circuit judges to discuss issues related to the surge of immigration cases reaching the circuit courts, including: the nature of immigration cases, BIA and IJ working procedures, changes to the administrative system, and reasons for increases in federal appeals.
BIA Finds Social Visibility Important in Determining Whether a Particular Social Group Exist
The BIA held that social visibility of a claimed social group is important in identifying if a “particular social group” exists and that a group of former drug informants working against the Cali cartel did not have the requisite social visibility. Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951 (BIA 2006)
MOA Between USCIS and ICE on the Issuance of NTAs
Memorandum of Agreement between USCIS and ICE, setting forth when each party may issue an NTA following a USCIS adjudication. The MOA applies to cases adjudicated on or after 10/1/06 and was released to AILA on 8/26/10 in response to a FOIA request initiated in March 2009.
CA10 Refuses to Apply CA9 Law on Immigration Consequences of CA9 Conviction
Although Petitioner was convicted within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, the court refused to apply 9th Circuit law to determine whether his conviction stood for immigration purposes because his immigration proceedings took place in the 10th Circuit. (Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 6/14/06)
AILF/AILA Comment Opposes Regulations on Eligibility of "Arriving Aliens" to Adjust Status in Removal Proceedings
AILF and AILA submitted comments opposing interim rules promulgated by CIS and EOIR suggesting unnecessary and harmful limits on the exercise of discretion in adjustment cases filed by "arriving aliens" in removal cases.