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
CA7 Holds BIA’s “Very Significant Mistake” As Grounds to Overrule Credibility Determination
The Court overturned the credibility determination, finding that the BIA’s“very significant mistake” that applicant was from eastern, not southern, Uganda, suggested that it was not aware of the most basic facts of the case. (Ssali v. Gonzales, 9/14/05)
CA10 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Non-Discretionary Determinations Regarding Cancellation Eligibility
The court held that INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar review of non-discretionary statutory determinations for cancellation eligibility, and that the calculation of absence from the U.S. is such a non-discretionary determination. (Valdiva v. Gonzales, 9/13/05)
CA2 Rejects International Law Argument in §212(h) Case
The court found that international law does not require “compassionate hearings” under INA §212(h) for LPRs whose criminal conduct pre-dated IIRIRA's enactment. (Guaylupo-Moya v. Gonzales, 9/12/05)
CA2 Rules Definitively That Imputed Political Opinion Is a Ground for Asylum
The court, in reversing the IJ’s denial of asylum, found that the IJ erred in failing to consider that a political opinion was imputed to Petitioner by Chinese authorities. (Gao v. Gonzales, 9/9/05)
CA7 Finds Landowning Class of Cattle Farmers in Colombia Constitutes a Particular Social Group
The Court found that Petitioners belonged to the particular social group of the educated, landowning class of cattle farmers. The Court found that they suffered past persecution including the murder of a family member, death threats and extortion. (Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 9/8/05)
CA10 Holds Past FGM Constitutes Persecution and Adopts BIA’s Acosta Definition of Particular Social Group
In remanding the asylum claim by Senegalese woman, the court held that past FGM constitutes persecution and adopted the BIA’s definition of particular social group set forth in Acosta and remanded to the BIA to frame Petitioner’s particular social group. (Niang v. Gonzales, 9/8/05)
CA11 Agrees that Colombian Family Had No Credible Fear of FARC
The Court found that Petitioners failed to show it was more likely than not that the FARC would harm them because of Petitioner father’s political activities. (Garcia-Reina v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 9/8/05)
CA3 Strikes Down Regulation Barring “Arriving Aliens” From Adjusting In Proceedings
The court joined the First Circuit in holding that 8 CFR §1245.1(c)(8) is invalid, reasoning that the regulation is based on an impermissible construction of INA §245(a), which authorizes parolees to adjust status. (Zheng v. Gonzales, 9/8/05)
CA3 Holds Timely Filed MTR Tolls Voluntary Departure
Where Petitioner filed a motion to reopen prior to the expiration of the voluntary departure period granted under current INA §240B(d), the court held that “tolling applies during the period of time that the BIA deliberates.” (Kanivets v. Ashcroft, 9/7/05)
CA9 Reverses IJ & Criticizes Her Predisposition to Discredit Testimony of Asylum-Seekers
The Court held that substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s negative credibility determination. It noted that it had reversed this IJ’s credibility determination in several previous cases and instructed the BIA to remand the case to a different IJ. (Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 9/7/05)
CA2 Says Prima Facie Showing Not Requred for Certain CAT MTRs
The court found that the CAT regulations on motions to reopen do not require applicants to establish a prima facie CAT case if their case was pending on or after March 22, 1999. (Guo v. Gonzales, 9/7/05)
CA1 Treats Habeas Appeal Pending on 5/11/05 as a Petition for Review
The court found that a habeas appeal pending in circuit court on 5/11/05 should be treated as a petition for review, reasoning that such a case is still “pending” in district court within the meaning of the REAL ID Act. (Ishak v. Gonzales, 9/6/05)
CA11 Upholds Adverse Credibility Finding in Haitian Asylum Case
The Court upheld the IJ’s decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal and CAT protection. The Court held that Petitioner’s testimony was “too general” and failed to demonstrate a connection between the persecution and Petitioner’s political opinion. (Dolce v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 9/6/05)
CA1 Upholds IJ Denial of Azeri-Armenian Asylum Claim
The court found that Petitioner failed to connect the past harm he suffered to the Armenian government or its inability to prevent the harm, and also found that he had resided safely elsewhere within Armenia. (Harutyunyan v. Gonzales, 9/2/05)
CA7 Finds IJ Erred in Making Adverse Credibility Determination & Violated Right to Due Process
The Court held that the IJ relied on irrelevant inconsistencies in reaching his adverse credibility finding. It also held that the IJ violated the Petitioner’s right to due process by barring the testimony of her experts. (Rodriguez Galicia v. Gonzales, 9/2/05)
CA9 Holds BIA Abused Its Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen Indian Asylum Claim
The Court found that Petitioner established prima facie eligibility for asylum by showing other family members have been harmed since her asylum hearing. The Court rejected the BIA’s characterization of Petitioner’s affidavit as “self-serving.” (Bhasin v. Gonzales, 9/1/05)
CA3 Finds Retroactive Application of Reinstatement Statute Improper
The court found that §241(a)(5) could not be applied retroactively because it would eliminate Petitioner’s pre-existing right to apply for voluntary departure, which he possessed during his 1988 illegal re-entry. (Dinnal v. Gonzales, 9/1/05)
OCIJ Responds to Videoconferencing Report
In a 8/31/05 letter to the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy criticizes the methodology and several findings made by the group's report on the use of videoconferencing in removal proceedings.
CA2 Finds BIA Erred in Denying Remand of Chinese One-Child Asylum Claim
The court found that the new evidence, including the availability of the wife to testify regarding forced abortion, medical records, and a birth certificate for the second child, was material and not available at the time of the hearing. (Cao v. Gonzales, 8/31/05)
CA2 Rejects Family Planning Claim from Fujian Province
The court found that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof where his native Fujian province has a relatively lax family planning policy that permits a second child if the first child is a girl. (Huang v. Gonzales, 8/29/05)
CA3 Finds CAT Eligibility Is Established If the Cumulative Probability of Torture Exceeds 50%
The court found that the proper application of the CAT regulations merely requires the petitioner to prove it is more likely than not he faces torture and that the cumulative probability of torture exceeds 50%. (Kamara v. Gonzales, 8/29/05)
CA9 Withdraws Somalian Class Action Decision; Orders Remand
CA9 withdrew its prior decision in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jama v. ICE, but remanded with instructions “to vacate the injunction and to reconsider the class certification in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla.” (Ali v. Gonzales, 8/26/05)
District Court Decision That USCIS Must Provide Proof of Status to Persons Granted LPR in Proceedings
District Court decision in a national class action in which the California court granted summary judgment, ruling against DHS' failure to provide timely evidence of permanent residence status following grant of status in removal proceedings. (Santillan v. Gonzalez, 8/24/05)
CA8 Holds Colombian Asylum Applicants Failed to Show They Would Be Harmed Because of Their Political Opinion or Family Membership
The Court found that the Petitioners failed to discuss their political opinion and how it differed from the FARC, and failed to prove that there was a threat against their family. (Bernal-Rendon v. Gonzales, 8/23/05)
CA4 Finds Credit Card Fraud Offense Not an Aggravated Felony Theft
CA4 found the BIA’s conclusion that fraud offenses were subsumed in the definition of theft offenses ignored the distinction between the two and, thus, was “contrary to the intention of Congress, as evidenced by its separate and different treatment of fraud.” (Soliman v. Gonzales, 8/22/05)