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 Adverse Credibility Finding in Chinese Asylum Case
The court sidestepped the issue of whether Petitioner was eligible for asylum based on his girlfriend’s forced abortion, and denied the petition, finding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. (Chen v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
CA9 Finds that Mexican Homosexual with AIDS Is Eligible for Asylum
In finding eligibility for asylum, the Court held that Petitioner, a homosexual from Mexico who was forced by a police officer to perform sex acts, was subjected to past persecution. (Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
CA3 Defines “Last Habitually Resided” in Refugee Definition
The court found that the IJ’s interpretation of “last habitually resided” based on the INA’s definition of “residence,” was permissible and agreed with IJ’s reliance on the length of time Petitioner stayed in Serbia, saying “habitual” means “long use.” (Paripovic v. Gonzales, 8/12/05)
Notes from NGO Meeting with CBP (8/11/05)
Discussions in a meeting between non-governmental organizations and officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection included such topics as erroneous I-94s, CBP officer training, NSEERS, and expedited removal.
CA9 Finds that IJ Must Not Ignore Inconsistencies Simply Because They Weaken an Asylum Claim
The Court found that its cases do not mandate that an IJ ignore repeated and blatant inconsistencies that weaken a claim for asylum. (Kaur v. Gonzales, 8/11/05)
CA9 Construes Pending Habeas Appeal as Timely Filed Petition for Review
CA9 construes pending habeas appeal as a timely filed petition for review, finding this in line with Congressional intent in passing the REAL ID Act. Court declines comment on cases where the pending habeas petition requires further factual development. (Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 8/11/05)
Side-by-Side Comparison of the McCain/Kennedy & Cornyn/Kyl Immigration Reform Proposals
AILA’s side-by-side comparison of the McCain/Kennedy (S. 1033) and Cornyn/Kyl (S. 1438) comprehensive immigration reform proposals.
BIA Says 2-Week Absence Followed by EWI Does Not Break Physical Presence
Distinguishing from Matter of Romalez, the BIA held that a 2-week absence does not break continuous physical presence where the respondent was refused admission without threat of exclusion proceedings and reentered without inspection. (Matter of Avilez, 8/10/05)
CA8 Defines Relevant Period of GMC for Special Rule Cancellation of Removal
The court held that, according to the plain meaning of 8 CFR §240.66(b) and NACARA §203, a petitioner must show good moral character during the 7-year period immediately preceding the date of petitioner’s application for "special rule cancellation of removal.” (Cuadra v. Gonzalez, 8/10/05)
CA9 Cordes v Gonzalez Vacated (Updated 4/3/08)
On 2/25/08, CA9 vacated the panel opinion from 2005, stating that the BIA sua sponte reopened the proceedings, vacated the revmoval order and remanded to the immigration judge. As a result of the remand, the court stated that it lost jurisdiction of the case. (Cordes v. Gonzalez, 8/10/05)
CA8 Addresses New INA §242(a)(2)(D); Finds State Felony Simple Possession Conviction is an AgFel
The court ruled that even if the state offense would not qualify as an aggravated felony under federal law, “the plain language of the INA... states that any drug conviction that would qualify as a felony under either state or federal law is an aggravated felony.” (Lopez v. Gonzales, 8/9/05)
CA7 Says No Jurisdiction to Review Discretionary Challenge to One Year Asylum Filing Deadline
The court found that qualifying for the changed or extraordinary circumstances exception to the one year asylum deadline is a discretionary determination, and thus not reviewable, because it must be demonstrated “to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.” (Vasile v. Gonzales, 8/9/05)
CA5 Finds Chinese Christian Failed to Show He Was Persecuted for His Religious Beliefs
The Court stated that it was unable to conclude that Petitioner was persecuted on account of his religion. The Court upheld BIA’s determination that Petitioner feared not persecution, but prosecution for failing to register his church as required by Chinese law . (Li v. Gonzales, 8/9/05)
CA5 Upholds Finding That Petitioner’s Departure Constituted a Withdrawal of His Pending BIA Appeal
Because Petitioner chose to sightsee in southern Texas and did not pay attention to what an IJ concluded was an accidental departure from the US, the court held his actions sufficiently “voluntary” to withdrawal his pending appeal under 8 C.F.R. §1003.4. (Long v. Gonzales, 8/9/05)
IJ Terminates Proceedings Against NSEERS Registrant
The IJ granted the motion to terminate where information underlying the charge of removability was obtained in violation of "fundamental regulatory rights and implicit consitutional rights" during NSEERS registration. Courtesy of Mario Russell.
CA7 Finds No Pattern or Practice of Persecution Against Gypsies in Bulgaria
The Court upheld the BIA’s findings that Petitioner failed to show a nexus between her ethnicity and her treatment, despite her attackers’ use of ethnic slurs. The Court also found no pattern or practice of persecution of Roma in Bulgaria.(Mitreva v. Gonzales, 8/8/05)
CA7 Defines Assistance in Persecution of Others in Denying Claim of Punjabi Constable
CA7 held that the record must reveal actual assistance or participation in the persecution of others, noting the distinction between genuine assistance and inconsequential association. It found that Petitioner’s conduct crossed the line into actual assistance.(Singh v. Gonzales, 8/5/05)
CA2 Rejects Asylum Claim Based Solely on Mother’s Forced Sterilization
The court stated that just as parents are not eligible for asylum based on coercive population control measures practiced on their children, the children of parents who are victims of this policy are also not per se eligible. (Chen v. Gonzales, 8/5/05)
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)