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
CA10 Holds that INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) Bars Review of IJ’s Decision Denying Continuance
Although an IJ’s discretion over continuances is by regulation and not statute, the court concluded that it stemmed from the IJ’s statutory authority to conduct removal proceedings and thus was “specified under” the INA for purposes of barring review. (Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 8/20/04)
CA1 Vacates BIA Denial of Motion to Reconsider
The court found that the BIA's erroneous mailing of the transcript and briefing schedule to an incomplete address deprived petitioner of an opportunity to have his appeal briefed. (Hossain v. Ashcroft, 8/19/04)
CA5 Vacates AWO Case and Remands for Full Opinion
Remanding for a full opinion, CA5 vacated a BIA affirmance without opinion because it lacked sufficient information to know whether the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum based on a reviewable or nonreviewable ground. (Yuqing Zhu v. Ashcroft, 8/19/04)
EOIR Fact Sheet on Professional Conduct for Immigration Practitioners
EOIR fact sheet providing rules and procedures for professional conduct for immigration practitioners, including general provisions, grounds for imposing sanctions, immediate suspensions, reinstatement, and forms. Fact sheet also includes Q&As.
AILA/AILF Comments on Joint Proposed Rule Regarding Execution of Removal Orders
AILA and AILF oppose the DHS/DOJ joint proposed regulations to remove the requirement that acceptance by a country is not required for removal to that country, and that "country" does not require the existence or functionality of a government.
EOIR Revises Guidance on Telephonic and Video Hearings
The Executive Office for Immigration Review's Office of the Chief Immigration Judge in OPPM No. 04-06 set forth new interim procedures for conducting and handling telephone and video conference hearings. Supersedes OPPM No. 04-04 issued July 22, 2004.
AILA/AILF Comments on the DHS/DOJ Joint Proposed Rule Regarding Execution of Removal Orders
AILA and AILF oppose the DHS/DOJ joint proposed regulations to remove the requirement that acceptance by a country is not required for removal to that country, and that "country" does not require the existence or functionality of a government.
Model Comment on DHS/DOJ Proposed Rule on Countries to Which a Foreign National May be Returned
A group of advocates, including AILA and AILF, compiled draft comments to the DHS/DOJ proposed rule amending regulations regarding countries to which individuals may be removed. Draft comments can be a model for those wishing to submit comments. Comments must be received by DHS/DOJ by 8/18/04.
State Bar of Texas Meeting Minutes (8/13/04)
The 8/13/04 minutes from the last quarterly meeting of the State Bar of Texas, Committee on Laws Relating to Immigration & Nationality, address a variety of issues. The committee met with various directors and discussed current procedures, policies, staffing levels, and more.
CBP Notice of Expansion of Expedited Removal Treatment
Notice on use of expedited removal procedures with foreign nationals who are inadmissible under INA §§ 212(a)(6)(C) or (7), apprehended within 100 air miles of a land border, and who are unable to establish physical presence in the U.S. for the past 14 days. (69 FR 48877, 8/11/04)
DHS Press Release on Expanded Expedited Removal and Border Crossing Cards
A DHS press release announces the expanded use of expedited removal to areas within 100 miles of the border, and indicates that a new rule will be issued allowing holders of border crossing cards to remain in the U.S. within the border zone for up to 30 days.
DHS to Initiate Expedited Removal Beyond Ports of Entry
DHS Undersecretary Hutchinson announced on 8/10/04 that the use of expedited removal will be expanded to points within 100 miles along the northern and southern borders. The program is not intended for Mexicans or Canadians, but such nationals could be subjected to it.
CA3 Calls for Record Reform in Asylum Proceedings
The court commented at length on a “disturbing trend" in which courts are forced to rely on evidence of country conditions in administrative records that is “grossly out-of-date” and urged Congress, DHS, and the BIA to take action to remedy the problem. (Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 8/5/04)
CA2 Says CT Third Degree Larceny Is an Aggravated Felony
The court held that third degree larceny under Connecticut General Statues §53a-124 is an aggravated felony theft offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G). (Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 8/5/04)
CA2 Rejects BIA Remand to Amend NTA
The court held that the BIA erred in remanding to allow INS to amend the NTA to charge Petitioner with additional convictions where INS failed to establish that evidence of the other convictions was previously unavailable. (Johnson v. Ashcroft, 8/5/04)
EOIR Fact Sheet of Forms of Relief in Proceedings
EOIR Fact Sheet addresses the most frequently requested forms of relief in removal proceedings, including voluntary departure, cancellation of removal, asylum, adjustment of status, motions to reopen/reconsider, stay of removal, and administrative and judicial appeals.
ABA Issues Report on UACs in the United States
The American Bar Association (ABA) issued a report on the standards for the custody, placement and care; legal representation; and adjudication of unaccompanied alien children in the United States.
CA6 BIA Lack Authority to Reinstate VD Period When Motion to Reopen Deportation Proceedings Is Denied
The court held that the BIA lacks authority to reinstate the voluntary departure when denying a motion to reopen. The court also lacks jurisdiction to reinstate the voluntary departure period in transitional rule cases. (Harchenko v. Ashcroft, 7/30/04)
CA6 Holds State Felony Simple Possession Convictions Are Not Aggravated Felonies in Criminal Re-entry Case
The court held that state felony drug offenses that do not contain a drug trafficking element must be punishable as a felony under federal law to constitute an aggravated felony under the INA. (United States v. Palacios-Suarez, 7/25/04)
CA6 Finds that St. Cyr Applies Where the Second of the Two CIMTs Resulted From a Plea
CA6 found that applying the repeal of § 212(c) to a petitioner charged with 2 unconnected crimes of moral turpitude would have impermissible retroactive effect, where the first conviction resulted from a trial and the second conviction was sustained by guilty plea. (Thaqi v. Jenifer, 7/23/04)
CA9 Finds Failure to Timely File BIA Appeal Amounted to Prejudicial Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Even though the BIA considered a later motion to reopen, the court found that petitioners had been prejudiced by prior counsel’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal, in part because they were deprived of the in-depth review of the IJ's factual conclusion. (Siong v. Ashcroft, 7/23/04)
BIA Affirms Grant of Asylee Adjustment and Waiver of Inadmissibility
The BIA rejected DHS's appeal, finding that EOIR has original and exclusive jurisdiction over an asylee adjustment and accompanying §209(c) waiver and that termination of a grant of asylum is not mandatory where §§209(b) and 209(c) relief is available. (Matter of K-A-, 7/23/04)
EOIR Guidance on Creating a Record in Court Telephonic and Video Conferences
Memo was rescinded by OPPM 04-06 on 8/18/04. OPPM 04-04 was issued 7/22/04 on creating an accurate record of the hearing location and whether it was conducted by telephone or video for purpose of determining applicable law.
CA7 Holds that Failure to Surrender for Deportation Constitutes Forfeiture of Judicial Review
Finding that the “fugitive-disentitlement doctrine” applies to immigration cases, CA7 dismissed the petition for review because petitioners did not surrender pursuant to bag-and-baggage letters, after the court had granted them temporary stays of removal. (Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 7/22/04)
CBP Factors to Consider When Exercising Discretion and List of Available Forms of Discretion
CBP 7/20/04 memo with additional guidance on CBP’s use of discretion, including factors to consider when deciding whether to exercise discretion and a list of the forms of discretion available. Received through American Immigration Council FOIA.