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
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum for Chinese Catholic
The court found no evidence that Petitioner suffered mistreatment in China because of her Catholic faith and that the climate in China was generally not oppressive for Catholics. (Zheng v. Gonzales, 8/4/05)
CA7 Finds Two Verbal Threats by FARC Did Not Amount to Persecution
The Court found that verbal threats for refusal to sell military supplies to FARC were not sufficiently immediate or menacing to be persecution, nor were the threats held to be on account of a protected ground.(Hernandez-Baena v. Gonzales, 8/4/05)
CA9 Rules Against Family Firmly Resettled in Canada in Effort to Discourage Forum Shopping
The Court held that a family who abandoned its refugee application in Canada after residing there for 4 years, was presumed to be firmly resettled. The Court found that forum shopping undermined the integrity of the international asylum regime. (Maharaj v. Gonales, 8/4/05)
CA9 Finds Russian Jew’s Cumulative Harm Amounted to Persecution
The Court found that the sustained economic pressure faced by Petitioner, the nature and extent of the physical violence she experienced, and the restrictions on her ability to practice her religion cumulatively amounted to persecution. (Krovota v. Gonzales, 8/4/05)
CA9 Finds that Asylum Hearing of Russian Pentecostal Did Not Comport with Due Process
The Court found that the IJ’s conduct was prejudicial, having excluded the testimony of several key witnesses, including Petitioner’s grandmother and an expert who could have affected the outcome of the proceedings. (Zolotukhin v. Gonzales, 8/3/05)
Chicago-Based Groups Release Report on Videoconferencing
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago released a study entitled, “Videoconferencing in Removal Proceedings: A Case Study of the Chicago Immigration Court,” calling for a moratorium on the use of videoconferencing until improvements are made.
CA7 Addresses Scope of Review of CAT Claims By Criminal Aliens
The court held that review of CAT claims by persons subject to INA §242(a)(2)(C) is limited to legal and constitutional claims, and not factual conclusions. (Hamid v. Gonzales, 8/2/05)
CA1 Finds Short Detentions Do Not Amount to Persecution
In an Albanian asylum claim, the court held that because Petitioner’s detentions lasted only 24 hours and he never needed medical attention as a result of the beatings he received, the harm did not amount to persecution. (Topalli v. Gonzales, 8/2/05)
CA2 Says BIA Erred in Failing to Consider China Country Report
The court found significant error in the BIA’s failure to consider the country report submitted by a Chinese asylum applicant where the report corroborated his fear of persecution based on his Christian religion. (Chen v. Gonzales, 8/2/05)
AILA/TSC Liaison Minutes (8/1/05)
Minutes from the 8/1/05 liaison meeting, cleared by TSC, include such topics as K-1 eligibility for EAD after marriage, cross-chargeability, recapture of earlier priority date, timing of mail pick-up, correct card push email address, I-485 approval notices, biometrics notices and more.
CA8 Upholds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination for Kenyan Asylum Applicant
CA8 found that the IJ gave specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Petitioner, including the lack of detail in his story, his implausible explanations for his bigamy and lack of contact with his family, and the lack of corroborating evidence for his allegations.(Ombongi v. Gonzales, 8/1/05)
CA7 Finds that Cohabitation with Boyfriend Is Not an Expression of Political Opinion
The Court found that a Chinese asylum applicant’s alleged expression of political opinion via cohabitation with a man outside marriage did not constitute a political opinion. (Li v. Gonzales, 8/1/05)
CA8 Upholds Regulation Barring Arriving Aliens from Adjusting Status While in Removal Proceedings
Reasoning that the ability limit eligibility for adjustment of status falls within the Attorney General’s discretionary authority in INA § 245(a) and INA §245(i)(2), the court upheld the regulation barring arriving aliens from adjusting in proceedings. (Mouelle et al. v. Gonzales, 7/29/05)
CA8 Rejects Claim that Salvadoran Government Unable or Unwilling to Protect Against Gang Members
CA8 rejected claims of Salvadoran asylum applicant, holding that Petitioner failed to show that Salvadoran police were unable or unwilling to protect her from a gang member. The Court discounted news articles about gang activity in El Salvador as too general. (Menjivar v. Gonzales, 7/29/05)
CA2 on Chevron Deference in the Context of BIA Summary Affirmance
The court held that an IJ's ruling on an issue of law that has been summarily affirmed by the BIA is not entitled to Chevron deference. (Shi Liang Lin v. Gonzales, 7/29/05)
CA3 Says Pennsylvania Simple Assault Is Not a Crime of Violence
The court ruled that a conviction in Pennsylvania for simple assault is not a crime of violence and is therefore, not an aggravated felony. (Popal v. Gonzales, 7/29/05)
CA3 Holds Honduran Street Children Are Not a Cognizable Social Group
The court found that the three main elements of Petitioner’s social group—poverty, homelessness and youth—were too vague and broad to be characteristics of a protected social group for asylum purposes. (Escobar v. Gonzales, (7/29/05)
CA6 Says BIA Credibility Determination Was Not Based on Substantial Evidence
The Court found that the inconsistencies cited by the Board either did not go to the heart of Petitioner’s claim, were corrected at the start of the hearing, or were non-existent. (Pergega v. Gonzales, 7/28/05)
CA8 Says BIA Erred in Not Considering Significant Evidence Regarding Objective Fear of Persecution
The Court held that the BIA erred in rejecting testimony of asylum applicant’s sister in finding that the applicant lacked an objective fear of persecution based on China’s One-Child Policy. (Zheng v. Gonzales, 7/28/05)
CA1 Upholds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Finding in Albanian Asylum Case
The court found that IJ correctly identified inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony and application, offered specific reasons for the adverse credibility finding, and properly relied on the 2001 DOS country report for Albania. (Dhima v. Gonzales, 7/28/05)
ICE Liaison Minutes (7/27/05)
The liaison minutes record the discussions with ICE regarding such topics as return of documents in removal proceedings, access to counsel, "cap gap" enforcement, departure bonds, database jurisdiction, and vigilante groups, among other issues. These minutes have been approved by the agency.
CA1 Finds No Objectively Reasonable Fear for Eritrean from Ethiopia
The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s finding that country conditions had changed such that the ethnic Eritrean petitioner would not be denied employment or deported to Eritrea if she returned to Ethiopia. (Negeya v. Gonzales, 7/27/05)
CA2 Finds IJ/BIA Failed to Address Nationality in Tibetan Asylum Claim
The court held that both the IJ and BIA erred in failing to address the threshold question of Petitioner’s nationality, where Petitioner was born and raised in refugee camp in India to Tibetan parents. (Dhoumo v. BIA, 7/27/05)
CA2 Says Parents and In-Laws Do Not Qualify for Family Planning-Based Asylum
The court denied asylum to Chinese nationals whose daughters-in-law were subjected to coercive population control methods, finding that an individual’s right to procreate does not extend to their parents and in-laws. (Feng Yuan v. Gonzales, 7/26/05)
CA5 Reverses Fraud Aggravated Felony Finding
The court held that Petitioner’s conviction for conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property was neither a fraud offense with loss of more than $10,000 to the victim, nor a conspiracy offense, and thus it was not an aggravated felony. (Omari v. Gonzales, 7/25/05)