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
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)
CA8 Finds Changed Conditions in Sierra Leone and Upholds BIA’s Asylum Denial
CA8 found that Petitioner failed to establish past persecution or fear of future persecution in Sierra Leone, upholding the finding of changed conditions based on a 2002 State Department Country Report that noted the end of the civil war and improving conditions.(Jalloh v. Gonzales, 8/18/05)
CA11 Finds Marriage and Pregnancy Do Not Constitute Changed Circumstances for MTR in Chinese Asylum Case
CA11 held the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen that was filed one day late. It also found that Petitioner’s marriage and his wife’s pregnancy did not occur in China, and thus did not qualify as a changed circumstance. (Zou v. Gonzales, 8/18/05)
CA1 Remands Albanian Asylum Claim for BIA Clarification
The court remanded to the BIA to clarify why it found that Petitioner had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear, where he testified that he was arrested, imprisoned, deprived of food, beaten, and threatened with death. (Halo v. Gonzales, 8/17/05)
En Banc CA8 Applies Prudential Mootness Doctrine to Detention Habeas
Petitioner’s release and unknown whereabouts rendered his case prudentially moot due to uncertainties, “including whether and where [he] might be apprehended, the changing country conditions in Somalia, and our inability to provide an effective remedy ...” (Ali v. Cangemi, 8/16/05)
CA2 Says Asylum Process Is Not a Search for Reasons to Deport
The court held that the IJ disregarded relevant evidence and applied the wrong legal standards when reviewing the evidence presented by a part-Jewish family from Belarus. (Poradisova v. Gonzales, 8/16/05)
CA6 Finds Young, Attractive Albanian Women Do Not Constitute a Particular Social Group
Petitioner argued that as a young, attractive woman in Albania she risked being kidnapped and forced into prostitution. The Court found that the group was too generalized for asylum purposes and that it was ill-defined. (Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 8/15/05)
CA8 Discusses Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial
While acknowledging it could review some legal and constitutional claims related to the IJ’s denial of a continuance pursuant to new INA §242(a)(2)(D), CA8 held that petitioner’s claim was purely discretionary and, thus, it lacked jurisdiction to review the claim.(Grass v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)