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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
CA4 Discusses Delivery Presumptions for Notices to Appear
The court held that for purposes of rescinding an in absentia removal order, where a notice to appear is sent by regular mail, the BIA abused its discretion by requiring Petitioner to rebut the “strong presumption” of delivery for certified mail. (Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 6/13/06)
Snapshot of the Hagel/Martinez Compromise (S. 2611)
AILA’s summary of the 795-page “Hagel/Martinez compromise" (S. 2611) passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006.
CA5 Holds AG’s Heightened Standard of Review for §209(c) Waivers Is Not Ultra Vires
The court held that the AG’s imposition of a heightened standard of review to §209(c) waivers of inadmissibility that are sought by “violent criminals” was within the scope of his discretion as conferred by the INA and therefore, not ultra vires. (Jean v. Gonzales, 6/9/06)
CA1 Reverses IJ Denial of Motion to Rescind In Absentia Order
The court held that the denial of Petitioner’s motion to rescind and reopen proceedings was based on an error of law where the IJ failed to consider the “totality of the circumstances” when evaluating “exceptional circumstances.” (Kaweesa v. Gonzales, 6/9/06)
BIA Denies Relief to Burmese Chin Based on Finding of Material Support
The BIA rejected a “totality of the circumstances” test for whether an organization is engaged in terrorist activity and refused to consider an alien’s intent in making a donation or the recipient’s intended use when deciding “material support”. Matter of S-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 936 (BIA 2006)
AG Remands Material Support Bar Case to BIA
The AG remands case in light of the 2/20/07 determination of the DHS Secretary that INA Sec. 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) shall not apply with respect to material support provided to the Chin National Front/Chin National Army. Matter of S-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 289 (AG 2007)