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
CA2 Rejects "Safe Haven" Finding
The court overturned the IJ’s safe haven finding where it was issued three days after the repeal of the regulation that allowed for a discretionary denial on that basis. (Tandia v. Gonzales, 2/7/06)
CA3 Weakens Collateral Estoppel Doctrine
Although the court found the doctrine of collateral estoppel generally applies in immigration cases, it does not apply “where a clearly deportable alien continues to commit criminal acts after initial proceedings are terminated.” (Duvall v. Attorney General, 2/7/06)
CA9 Overturns IJ’s Negative Credibility Determination of Asylum Applicant Who Smuggled Falun Gong Material into China
The court held that the IJ did not identify a specific, cogent reason to support his incredibility finding, but instead relied on speculation and conjecture about Petitioner’s position in Chinese society and what someone in her position would do. (Zhou v. Gonzales, 2/7/06)
CA2 Says No Jurisdiction to Review Smuggling Waiver
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) barred review of the denial of a smuggling waiver under INA §212(d)(11) because such denials are committed to the Attorney General’s discretion. (Saloum v. Gonzales, 2/6/06)
DOJ FY2007 Budget Request
The Department of Justice (DOJ) news release highlights components of the President’s FY 2007 budget proposal for the DOJ, including $8.8 million earmarked for the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
CA2 Adopts “Totality of the Circumstances” Test for Firm Resettlement
The court adopted a totality of the circumstances test and concluded that the IJ’s finding of firm resettlement was not supported by substantial evidence. (Sall v. Gonzales, 2/3/06)
CA2 Says IJ Erred, But Upholds Negative Credibility Finding
The court held that the IJ erred in finding that Petitioner’s testimony lacked detail, but nonetheless concluded that the IJ’s denial of asylum was supported by substantial evidence. (Qyteza v. Gonzales, 2/2/06)
CA6 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial and Remand Denial but Says No Jurisdiction to Review Voluntary Departure Denial
CA6 held that, for purposes of the INA §242(a)(2)(B)(iii) jurisdiction bar, the continuance bar applies when the IJ is performing duties delegated by the Attorney General but not when the IJ carries out duties conferred by the INA.(Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales, 2/1/06)
EOIR Requests Comments on Information Collection for Form 29
EOIR revises information collection regarding Form 29, Notice of Appeal to the BIA from a Decision of a USCIS Officer. Comments due 3/31/06. (71 FR 4935, 1/30/06)
DHS Further Expands Expedited Removal
DHS Secretary Chertoff announces that expedited removal is being expanded to include those who have spent 14 days or less in the U.S. and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border with Canada or Mexico or arrive by sea and are apprehended within 100 miles of a coastal border area.
CA2 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Timeliness of Asylum Application
The court found that it had jurisdiction to review whether any rational trier of fact would be compelled to conclude that Petitioner provided clear and convincing evidence that he timely filed his asylum application. (Liu v. Gonzales, 1/30/06)
CA8 Finds Agency Erred by Not Placing Burden on Gov’t in Asylum Termination
The court found that the IJ and BIA erred in placing the burden on Petitioner to prove her asylum eligibility anew. The court held that the regulation requires the government to prove fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.(Ntangsi v. Gonzales, 1/30/06)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen in Chinese Family Planning Case
The court held that the BIA properly denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen where the motion did not include new evidence and where Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the Lozada requirements. (Zeng v. Gonzales, 1/27/06)
CA2 Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Hardship Determination for Cancellation
Joining several other circuits, the court held that INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i) barred it from reviewing the purely discretionary determination of whether a person demonstrated hardship to merit cancellation of removal. (De La Vega v. Gonzales, 1/27/06)
BIA on Inadmissibility After Reentry Post-Removal
The BIA holds that a person who enters without admission after removal is inadmissible even if AG granted permission to reapply for admission prior to reentering unlawfully. Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006)
CA2 Finds IJ Abused His Discretion in Denying Asylum in Forced Sterilization Case
The court held that the IJ abused his discretion by not considering the totality of the circumstances, relying instead on findings that part of Petitioner’s story was false and that he had used a smuggler. (Huang v. INS, 1/25/06)
CA7 Reviews Petition for Review Filed Beyond 30-Day Deadline
Relying on REAL ID §106(c), CA7 held that, where Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition was pending in district court on 5/11/05, it could review the BIA’s 1997 decision even though the petition for review was not filed within the 30-day deadline. (Medellin-Reyes v. Gonzales, 1/24/06)
CA7 Overturns Adverse Credibility Finding of Albanian Asylum Applicant
The court held that the IJ erred in finding Petitioner’s testimony was implausible, inconsistent with a DOS country profile and inconsistent with other evidence.(Shtaro v. Gonzales, 1/24/06)
BIA Says Victim of Sexual Abuse Under 18 Years Old is a Minor
The BIA held that a victim of sexual abuse under the age of 18 is a minor for purposes of determining whether an alien has been convicted of sexual abuse of a minor within the meaning of the INA. Matter of V-F-D, 23 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2005)
CA6 Heightens the Prejudice Showing Required to Prevail on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims Based on Prior Counsel’s Failure to Seek Judicial
The court held that “the lost opportunity to appeal an adverse decision in a removal proceeding, because of ineffective assistance of counsel, cannot form the basis of a due process claim unless the appeal itself would have succeeded.” (Sako v. Gonzales, 1/20/06)
CA2 Discusses One-Year Asylum Deadline and “Last Arrival"
The court found Petitioner's asylum application untimely and concluded that the term "last arrival in the United States" should not include return on parole after a brief trip abroad. (Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 1/18/06)
CA2 Upholds Adverse Credibility, Concedes Other Panel Might Have Found Otherwise
In a Chinese family planning case, the court held that the IJ’s implausibility finding was supported by substantial evidence, but noted that other panels could have decided differently. (Chen v. Gonzales, 1/12/06)
CA5 Says It Can Review Legal and Constitutional Challenges to Orders Underlying Reinstatement Orders
CA5 found INA §242(a)(2)(D) covers the bar to review of a prior order in INA §241(a)(5) and thus permits review of legal and constitutional claims. But, the court dismissed the case because Petitioner failed to appeal the order in the prior proceedings. (Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 1/12/06)
CA5 Joins Second and Fourth Circuits in Holding that Persons With Pre-IIRIRA Jury Convictions Are Not Eligible for §212(c)
Adopting the Second Circuit’s rationale in Rankine v. Reno, the court held that IIRIRA’s repeal of relief under former §212(c) does not have impermissible retroactive effect on people with pre-IIRIRA jury trial convictions. (Hernandez-Castillo v. Gonzales, 1/12/06)
CA9 Reaffirms Reliance Requirement in Retroactivity Analysis
To establish impermissible retroactive effect, the court held that a petitioner must demonstrate that the underlying conduct would have been different based on reliance on existing immigration laws. Two circuits have disagreed. (Kelava v. Gonzales, 1/12/06).