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
CA4 Refuses EAJA Fees in Criminal Habeas Actions; Distinguishes Immigration Habeas Actions
The court held that § 2241 habeas petitioners in criminal custody are not entitled to recover EAJA fees because such actions are not purely “civil actions.” The court recognized that its rationale was not applicable to habeas petitions in the immigration context. (O’Brien v. Moore, 1/27/05)
CA7 Rejects Retroactive Application of Reinstatement Provision
The court held that the Service cannot reinstate a prior order of removal pursuant to INA § 241(a)(5) against an individual who reentered the U.S. and filed an affirmative relief application before 4/1/97. (Faiz-Mohammad v. Ashcroft, 1/27/05)
Text of the REAL ID Act (H.R. 418) as Introduced by Representative Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Text of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418), introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on 1/26/05. The bill purports to enhance security through already failed anti-immigration proposals.
BIA Denies Asylum Due to U.S. National Security
The BIA denied asylum to the leader-in-exile of an Algerian political group for assisting and condoning armed acts of persecution at home and for being a "danger to the security of the United States." (Matter of A-H-, 1/26/05)
Cerda Memo on Post-Order Custody Review after Clark v. Martinez
A 1/21/05 memo from Victor Cerda, Acting Director, Office of Detention and Removal Operations, ICE, provides interim guidance on post-order custody reviews following the Supreme Court's decision in Clark v. Martinez.
Attorney General Remands Matter of R-A-
The Attorney General remanded Matter of R-A- to the BIA "for reconsideration following publication of the proposed rule" on gender-based asylum. (Matter of R-A-, 1/19/05)
AG Finds Expunged Firearms Conviction Still Valid for Immigration Purposes
The AG reversed and remanded to the BIA, finding that the expungement of a firearms conviction pursuant to California state law does not change the fact that the person is still "convicted" for immigration purposes. (Matter of Luviano-Rodriguez, 1/18/05)
AG Says Firearms Conviction Expunged by State Law Still Holds for Immigration Purposes
Citing the INA’s definition of “conviction,” the AG ruled that a firearms conviction expunged under California law still renders the respondent removable. (Matter of Marroquin-Garcia, 1/18/05)
CA9 Holds that Filing a Timely Motion to Reopen and Stay Request Tolls the Voluntary Departure Period
Where a person files a motion to reopen and request for a stay of removal or voluntary departure prior to the expiration of the voluntary departure period, the court held that the departure period is tolled while the BIA is adjudicating the motion. (Azarte v. Ashcroft, 1/18/05)
CA10 Upholds Retroactive Application of Reinstatement Statute
The court held that application of INA § 241(a)(5) would not have impermissible retroactive effect because petitioner was not eligible for adjustment of status before INA § 241(a)(5)’s April 1, 1997 effective date. (Fernandez-Vargas v. Ashcroft, 1/12/05)
Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Holding that Inadmissible Aliens May Not Be Detained Indefinitely
The Supreme Court held that its decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, finding indefinite detention unconstitutional, applies to non-admitted foreign nationals. (Clark v. Martinez, 1/12/05)
Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Holding that U.S. May Deport Noncitizens Without Consent of Receiving Country
The Supreme Court held that INA §241(b)(2)(e)(iv) allows removal to a country without the advance consent of that country's government. (Jama v. ICE, 1/12/05)
ICE Re-Circulates Guidance on ICE Transportation, Detention, and Processing Requirements
ICE re-circulated a 10/18/04 memo titled “Detention Prioritization and Notice to Appear Documentary Requirements” and outlined how the guidance should be used to assist ICE officials while conducting immigration enforcement operations.
CA9 Says Hearsay Evidence From Self-Interested Witness Insufficient to Prove Removability
Petitioner’s removability for “alien smuggling” was not established by “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence” because the only information concerning his activities was contained in the hearsay affidavit of a self-interested witness. (Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 1/10/05)
CA6 Finds No Continuous Physical Presence
CA6 found that continuous physical presence was not established for purposes of cancellation of removal, even though the IJ determined that the last entry occurred in 1985, and that back tax returns had been submitted for all of the years in question. (Santana-Albarran v. Ashcroft, 01/10/05)
AILF Q&AS on Succar v. Ashcroft
In a landmark decision in Succar v. Ashcroft, the First Circuit ruled that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8) was invalid because it was inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress in INA § 245(a) to allow parolees to adjust status. AILF prepared Q&As on how others might benefit from this decision.
ICE/EOIR Final Rule on Countries to Which Foreign Nationals May Be Removed
Joint ICE/EOIR final rule providing new procedures for designation and determination of a country for removal, acceptance by a country is not required, and the determination of a "country" does not require the existence or functionality of a government. (70 FR 661, 1/5/05)
CA1 Declines to Address Whether “Whistleblowers” Are a Social Group
The court avoided the issue of whether “whistleblowers” constitutes a particular social group because it found that Petitioner failed to show that he suffered persecution on account of his membership in such a group. (Da Silva v. Ashcroft, 1/5/05)
CA1 Strikes Down Arriving Alien Adjustment Regulation
In a landmark decision, the court held that 8 CFR §245.1(c)(8) was invalid because it was inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress in INA §245(a) to allow parolees to adjust status. (Succar v. Ashcroft, 1/5/05)
CA9 Finds Nevada Conviction For Attempting to Be Under the Influence of THC Is Not A Controlled Substance Offense
CA9 found that a conviction for “attempting to be under the influence of . . . THC-carboxylic acid” was not a removable offense because it was not shown to be a conviction for other than possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use. (Prides Medina v. Ashcroft, 1/4/05)
CA11 Says Denaturalization Required for Individual Who Committed Acts Underlying Drug Conviction Prior to Taking Oath of Allegiance
The Court upheld the finding that Petitioner was required to be denaturalized due to his commission of a controlled substance offense prior to taking the oath, even though his actual conviction was not sought and sustained until later. (Jean-Baptiste v. United States, 1/4/05)
CA3 Finds IJ’s Conclusions on Asylum Inconsistent with Record
The court found that the IJ’s ruling against Petitioner on whether she was subjected to “state-sponsored” religious persecution in China was inconsistent with record and not supported by substantial evidence. (Wu v. Ashcroft, 1/4/05)
CA3 Finds Lack of Authenticated Corroborating Documentation Is Not a Basis for Adverse Credibility
The court found that the BIA improperly sustained the IJ’s adverse credibility finding which was based primarily on Petitioner’s failure to provide authenticated documents in corroboration of his claim. (Leia v. Ashcroft, 1/4/05)
CA1 Upholds IJ/BIA Refusal to Reopen In Absentia Order
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order where Petitioner failed to establish lack of notice. (Sousa v. Ashcroft, 1/3/05)
CA9 Holds That Incarceration in a County Jail Constitutes Confinement “To a Penal Institution” for the Purposes of INA § 101(f)(7)
Petitioner’s incarceration in a county jail for more than 180 days subsequent to a conviction for vehicular manslaughter constituted confinement “to a penal institution” for the purposes of INA § 101(f)(7). (Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 1/3/05)