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
CA8 Holds That IJ Properly Relied on Common-Sense Inferences in Finding That DHS Proved Petitioner’s Alienage
The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s conclusion—affirmed and adopted by the BIA—that DHS had satisfied its burden to prove the Honduran petitioner’s alienage by clear and convincing evidence. (Escobar v. Garland, 12/15/22)
CA5 Holds That Petitioner Had No Legal Basis to Complain That Her Notice to Appear Was in English
The court found that there was no legal authority to support the petitioner’s assertion that the United States was required to provide notice of the petitioner’s hearing in any language other than English. (Platero-Rosales v. Garland, 12/15/22)
Key Takeaways from AILA Meetings with DOJ Leadership
Summaries of meetings between AILA staff and coalition partners and DOJ leadership to raise AILA’s top immigration reform priorities. These meetings grew from the March 2021 letter AILA and partners sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland. The latest meeting occurred in July 2022.
Practice Alert: EOIR to Create Dedicated “EOIR 33” Docket
EOIR is creating a dedicated docket for individuals without a fixed address known as the “EOIR 33 Docket.” This will also be paired with a shift in practice on the part of both CBP and ICE in how NTAs issued at the border and changes of address are handled.
Practice Pointer: Asylum Processing Rule
A new asylum processing rule changes the way that DHS processes asylum cases for certain individuals in expedited removal proceedings. This rule creates a significantly condensed processing time and shifts some of the processing that used to happen at the southern border to interior cities.
Revised 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form EOIR-31
EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-31. This notice was previously published with an incorrect email address for comments. This notice corrects the email address and extends the period for comment to 1/9/23. (87 FR 75665, 12/9/22)
BIA Holds That Evidence Obtained from Routine Traffic Stop Is Not Entitled to Hearing on Suppression Motion
The BIA held that where an IJ finds that a traffic stop was a routine law enforcement action, a respondent has not established a prima face case of a Fourth Amendment violation and is not entitled to a hearing on a suppression motion. Matter of Mariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666 (BIA 2022)
The Death to Asylum Regulations Continue to Harm Asylum Seekers Even Though They Are Enjoined
AILA member Victoria Neilson writes about the “Death to Asylum“ regulations and their continued impact on practitioners and asylum seekers ahead of the two-year anniversary of these Trump-era regulations being published on 12/11/20.
EOIR Releases Internet-Based Hearings Access Information
EOIR released a list of internet-based hearings access information, alphabetized by state and then immigration court within each state. EOIR included Immigration Judge default hearing mediums, access codes, and hearing links.
CA9 Says a Conviction Under California Penal Code §273a(a) Qualifies as a Crime of Child Abuse Under the INA
The en banc court held that the petitioner’s conviction under California Penal Code §273a(a) for willfully allowing a child under his care to be placed in a situation where their person or health was endangered was an offense under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i). (Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland, 12/8/22)
CA11 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Asylum to Bangladeshi Petitioner Based on IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination
The court found that the IJ and the BIA had offered specific, cogent reasons for determining that the Bangladeshi petitioner’s testimony was not credible, and concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the IJ’s demeanor determination. (Hasan-Nayem v. Att’y Gen., 12/7/22)
ICE Flyer with Remote Check-in Instructions for the NYC ICE/ERO Office
ICE provides a flyer in English and Spanish with instructions and QR codes to complete required check-ins remotely for Southern border parole arrivals at the NYC ICE/ERO office.
We Must Protect Children in Immigration Proceedings
AILA Law Journal authors Lory D. Rosenberg, Susan G. Roy, Paul Schmidt, and Rekha Sharma-Crawford share some insights about their article, “Time for a Child Welfare Approach to Cancellation of Removal“ in which they focused on how the best interests of the child are routinely ignored.
AILA and the American Immigration Council Respond to a Bipartisan Framework of Immigration Reform Compromises
AILA and the Council respond to the news that Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) have reached an agreement on a draft Border and DREAM Act Deal.
CA3 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Motion to Reconsider After Finding Petitioner’s Waiver of Administrative Appeal Was Valid
Denying the consolidated petitions for review, the court found that the record did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner had unknowingly, involuntarily, and unintelligently waived his right to an administrative appeal under INA §242(b)(4)(B). (Alexander-Mendoza v. Att’y Gen., 12/2/22)
CA9 Finds There Is No Exception to INA §241(a)(5) for Removal Orders That Result in a Gross Miscarriage of Justice
The court held that INA §241(a)(5), which bars reopening reinstated removal orders, has no exception for removal orders that result in a gross miscarriage of justice, and that the BIA may not reopen such reinstated removal orders sua sponte. (Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 7/18/22, amended 12/2/22)
CA9 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Untimely Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Alleged Underlying Conviction Was Invalid
The court held that BIA did not err in denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen, which was not subject to equitable tolling, and which challenged his removal order on the ground that his underlying conviction was allegedly invalid. (Perez-Camacho v. Garland, 8/1/22, amended 12/2/22)
CA5 Distinguishes Rodriguez v. Garland Where Petitioner’s NTA Was Defective But He Received Subsequent NOH
The court denied the petition for rehearing and found that Rodriguez v. Garland was distinguishable, because although the petitioner’s Notice to Appear (NTA) was defective, he did not dispute receiving the subsequent Notice of Hearing (NOH). (Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 12/1/22)
CA5 Finds BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen of Nigerian Brothers Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of the petitioners’ motions to reopen based on ineffective counsel and in refusing to reopen their removal proceedings sua sponte. (Eneugwu v. Garland, 12/1/22)
ICYMI: ICE Issues Statement on Improper Disclosure of Noncitizen Personally Identifiable Information
ICE posted notice that a document was erroneously posted to ICE.gov for approximately five hours that included personally identifiable information of approximately 6,000 noncitizens in ICE custody. ICE is notifying noncitizens or their attorneys impacted by the disclosure.
BIA Enters Order of Disbarment Where Respondent Represented 10 People Before DHS and BIA Despite His Suspension from Practice
The BIA adopted the sanction proposed by the Disciplinary Counsels for EOIR and DHS by entering an order of disbarment, but held that it may deviate from a proposed sanction if the particular facts and circumstances warrant a different result. Matter of K. Gupta, 28 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2022)
AILA and the American Immigration Council Respond to Supreme Court Oral Arguments in U.S. v. Texas
AILA and the Council respond to oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court in the case U.S. v. Texas, a dispute over the Biden Administration’s authority to set immigration policy.
CA5 Uphold BIA’s Denial of Withholding of Removal to Petitioner Convicted of Tax Fraud Under 18 USC §287
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for tax fraud under 18 USC §287 constituted an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(M)(i), and that the IJ had correctly applied the right legal test to find that her conviction was particularly serious. (Hammerschmidt v. Garland, 11/28/22)
CA8 Dismisses Petition Where BIA Denied Cancellation Based on Petitioner’s Failure to Satisfy Hardship Requirement
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary conclusion that the hardship the petitioner’s removal would cause his U.S.-citizen children was not substantially beyond that typically caused by a noncitizen’s removal. (Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland, 11/23/22)
AILA and Partners Submit an Amicus Brief on the Fifth Circuit’s Approach to “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies”
AILA and partners submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland arguing that the Fifth Circuit's requiring of motions to reconsider would burden and aggravate inefficient review of removal orders and the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed.