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
BIA Upholds Denial of Adjustment for Failure to Maintain Status
The BIA found that failure to maintain status was not "for technical reasons" where an asylum application was filed while respondent was in nonimmigrant status, nonimmigrant status expired, and asylum was referred to an IJ prior to filing for adjustment of status. (Matter of L-K-, 9/30/04)
EOIR Press Release on Final Rule Implementing St. Cyr Decision
EOIR press release on the final rule establishing procedures for 212(c) applications for eligible lawful permanent residents with certain criminal convictions obtained by plea agreements prior to 4/1/97. Eligible individuals must apply for relief by filing special motions on or before 4/26/05.
CA11 Vacates Prior Decision Finding Removability Not Established in Weapons Case and Orders Rehearing En Banc
Applying the highly deferential substantial evidence standard, the court found that the BIA’s deportability finding was not unreasonable despite ambiguities in the conviction document. (Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 9/28/04)
DOJ Publishes Final Rule on 212(c) Relief
EOIR final rule with procedures for filing 212(c) relief for eligible individuals in proceedings or under final deportation/removal orders. Rule addresses criminal convictions resulting from pre-4/1/97 plea agreements reached prior to trial verdict. Rule effective 10/28/04. (69 FR 57826, 9/28/04)
CA3 Affirms Inadmissibility for Providing Material Support to Terrorists
Over dissent, the court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner was inadmissible because he provided food and shelter to individuals who he knew or reasonably should have known had committed or planned to commit terrorist acts. (Singh-Kaur v. Ashcroft, 9/23/04)
BIA Recognizes Validity of Post-Operative Transsexual Marriage
In an unpublished decision, the BIA found that the beneficiary who completed male-to-female sexual conversion surgery and married a male, is in an opposite-sex marriage for purposes of of the Defense of Marriage Act. Courtesy of Jose Monge.
CA3 Says Attempted Reckless Endangerment Is Not a CIMT
The court reasoned that the actual intent for an attempt conviction was inconsistent with acting recklessly. “A person cannot intend to commit a criminally reckless act. He or she either acts recklessly or does not.” (Knapick v. Ashcroft, 9/17/04)
CA3 Says Delaware Sexual Contact Is Not An Aggravated Felony
Employing the categorical approach, the court held that petitioner was not convicted of the aggravated felony of sexual abuse of a minor because the criminal statute at issue did not contain an element specifying the age of the victim. (Singh v. Ashcroft, 9/17/04)
EOIR Memo on Unaccompanied Minors in Proceedings
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) memo defines "unaccompanied alien child," limiting the child's age to under 18; discusses modifications of courtroom settings and appropriate courtroom procedures; and addresses specified coding for unaccompanied minors' cases.
EOIR Fact Sheet on BIA Streamlining
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Fact Sheet summarizes EOIR's assessment of the Board of Immigration Appeals' streamlining procedure with respect to backlog reduction and appeals to the Federal Circuit Courts.
CA7 Holds That Non-Compelled Departures Do Not Break Physical Presence for Cancellation Eligibility
The court held that INA § 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar review of non-discretionary statutory eligibility requirements for discretionary relief, and that departures made without any threat of removal proceedings do not break continuous physical presence. (Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft, 9/15/04).
CA1 on Retroactive Effect of Reinstatement Provision
The court held that application of the reinstatement provisions under INA §241(a)(5) would not have impermissible retroactive effect because Petitioner was not eligible for adjustment of status before it took effect. (Lattab v. Ashcroft, 9/14/04)
CA9 Affirms Dismissal of Post-Removal Detention Habeas Petitions Filed Before the 90-Day Removal Period Expired (Updated 11/8/04)
The court held that habeas petitioners whose removal is not reasonably foreseeable cannot raise a colorable due process claim for release until the 90-day removal period has expired. (Khoutesouvan et al. v. Morones, 10/27/04)
CA11 Rejects Challenge to Matter of Roldan
The court held that a state conviction is a conviction for immigration purposes, regardless of whether it is later expunged under a state rehabilitative statute, so long as it satisfies the definition of conviction in INA § 101(a)(48)(A). (Resendiz-Alcaraz v. Ashcroft, 9/10/04)
CA7 Empowered to Stay Voluntary Departure in Permanent Rule Cases
Joining CA6, 8, and 9, CA7 held “nothing in IIRAIRA divests us of the power to grant a stay tolling the time for departure until the completion of judicial review” if a motion to stay voluntary departure is filed before the date for departure.(Lopez-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 9/9/04)
CA9 Finds Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Due Process Violations Apply Only After Proceedings Commence
The court found that prior counsel’s erroneous advice regarding eligibility for relief did not amount to a due process violation because the erroneous advice was given prior to commencement of proceedings and, thus, did not taint the hearing itself. (Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 9/8/04)
CA9 Rules Section 241(a)(5) Reinstatement Impermissible
Applying the rationale of St. Cyr to INA § 241(a)(5)’s bar to “review,” the court held that habeas review remains available to raise a due process challenge to a prior order that has been reinstated. (Arreola-Arreola v. Ashcroft, 9/8/04)
CA7 Finds IJ’s Refusal to Continue Removal Proceedings Violates INA § 245(i)
The court found that the IJ violated INA § 245(i) when he denied petitioner’s continuance in order to have his labor certification processed. (Subhan v. Ashcroft, 9/7/04)
CA9 Withdraws Armentero Decision Regarding Whom to Sue in Habeas Cases
The court granted the government’s rehearing petition, withdrew its prior published decision, and deferred submission of the case pending oral argument. (Armentero v. INS, 9/1/04)
EOIR Five Year Strategic Plan for FY2005-FY2010
EOIR strategic plan for FY2005-2010, providing a comprehensive, multi-year framework for carrying out its mission, including the following goals: timely adjudications, professional services, electronic filing, and workforce standards.
BIA Finds Charging Document In Prior Proceeding Does Not End Physical Presence
The BIA found that an alien who departed the U.S. after being served with a charging document can seek cancellation in a subsequent removal proceeding, based on a new period of continuous physical presence measured from the date of his return to the U.S. (Matter of Cisneros-Gonzalez, 9/1/04)
CA9 Addresses Whether Returning LPR is Properly Charged with Inadmissibility for Making a False USC Claim
The court ruled that the BIA’s failure to decide whether petitioner was convicted of a CIMT made it impossible to determine whether he was “seeking admission” under INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) and, therefore, whether he could be charged with inadmissibility. (Toro-Romero v. Ashcroft, 8/30/04)
CA1 Finds Exhaustion Under INA §242(d) Applies to Habeas Actions
The court found that INA §242(d), which bars review of a final order unless the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies, applies to habeas corpus actions. (Sayyah v. Farquharson, 8/30/04)
CA11 Refuses to Apply Reinstatement Provision Retroactively
The court held that INA § 241(a)(5), as amended by IIRAIRA, cannot be applied retroactively to a petitioner who applied for discretionary relief before IIRIRA's April 1, 1997 effective date. (Sarmiento-Cisneros v. Ashcroft, 8/27/04)
CA9 Affirms That State Felony Simple Possession Conviction Not an Aggravated Felony
The court held that state felony drug offenses are not aggravated felonies for immigration purposes unless the offense contains a drug trafficking element or is punishable under federal law. (Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 8/24/04)