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
CA5 Finds No Due Process Violation Where Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Results in Denial of Discretionary Relief
Reviewing the BIA’s decision affirming the denial of a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, CA5 held that petitioner’s motion did not allege a due process violation because he was ultimately seeking discretionary relief from removal. (Assaad v. Ashcroft, 7/19/04)
ICE/EOIR Notice on Countries to Which Foreign Nationals May be Removed
DHS and DOJ rule specifing 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. Also addressed is the countries to which one may be removed. (69 FR 42901, 7/1/04)
CA2 Rejects “No Liberty or Property Interest in Discretionary Relief” Argument
The court rejected the government’s position that noncitizens have no protected liberty or property interest in obtaining discretionary relief, explaining that the argument erroneously relies on a property rights analysis from §1983 cases. (U.S. v. Copeland, 7/16/04)
CA8 Finds Reinstatement Has Impermissible Retroactive Effect (Updated 11/8/04)
CA8 held a person who filed a labor certification application before 4/1/97 could not be subject to reinstatement of removal, reasoning that it would have impermissible retroactive effect because it would deprive him of his right to defend against deportation.(Lopez-Flores v. DHS, 10/28/2004)
Current and Defunct Miscellaneous Codes Used By USCIS
A list of current and defunct codes used by USCIS in contexts other than the green card.
CA8 Denies Motions for Stay of Voluntary Departure Filed After the Expiration of Such Period
CA8 held it lacked authority to stay the voluntary departure period where the request for a stay of the voluntary departure period was filed after expiration of the period. (Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft, 7/8/04); (Molathwa v. Ashcroft, 7/8/04)
CA3 Finds Controlled Substance Conviction Bars Judicial Review
The court held that the fact that Petitioner was charged with and found removable for a controlled substance conviction barred judicial review under INA §242(a)(2)(C), even though he did not challenge that finding in the petition for review. (Douglas v. Ashcroft, 7/8/04)
ICE Interim Use of Force Policy (7/7/04)
ICE interim use of force policy, dated 7/7/04, intended to create a comprehensive policy to unify operational elements in the critical area of firearms and the related disciplines. Policy includes general guidelines, reporting requirements, intermediate force devices, and marine enforcement.
CA10 Articulates Standard and Documentation Requirements for Stay of Removal Pending Judicial Review
CA10 stated that requests to stay removal pending judicial review must be presented in a separate motion and establish both that the court has jurisdiction over the appeal and that a stay is warranted under the appropriate standard. (Lim v. Ashcroft, 7/9/04 & Singh v. Ashcroft, 7/7/04)
CA8 Construes Motion for Stay of Removal to Include Motion to Stay Voluntary Departure Period
CA8 stayed voluntary departure on the showing that it was warranted under the same standards for stay of removal requests. It also deemed a motion to stay removal filed prior to the expiration of the voluntary departure period to include a motion to stay that period.(Rife v. Ashcroft, 7/7/04)
ORR Announces Funding Opportunity for Unaccompanied Alien Children
HHS’s ORR published notice of a funding opportunity to provide shelter care services to unaccompanied alien children, including physical care and maintenance, medical/mental health care, dental services and other social services. The deadline is 8/6/04. (69 FR 40950, 7/7/04)
CA9 Amends Rationale in Prior Decision Barring Relief Where Motion to Reopen was Filed After Voluntary Departure Period Expired
CA9 amended its rationale in a prior decision which barred relief for an individual who overstayed voluntary departure where a motion to reopen was filed after the voluntary departure period, but before the end of the 90-day period for an MTR. (DeMartinez v. Ashcroft, Amended 7/2/04)
Sign-On Letter Advocating Reforms for Children Seeking Asylum
A letter from AILA and other organizations calling on DHS, ORR, and EOIR to take all steps necessary to ensure the well-being of vulnerable children who seek refuge in the U.S. and highlighting the story of Edgar Chocoy, a child asylum-seeker who was murdered after his deportation from the U.S.
CA6 Affirms Habeas Jurisdiction to Review Reinstatement of Prior Removal Order
Affirming habeas corpus jurisdiction to review both a reinstatement order and the prior removal order, CA6 concluded that petitioner’s drug conviction was an aggravated felony because it was punishable under the Controlled Substances Act. (Garcia-Echaverria v. United States, 7/1/2004)
CA2 Excuses Exhaustion Requirement to Remedy Unlawful Deportation
The court excused Petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies where the basis of the removal order was nullified and manifest injustice would occur if the court failed to consider his meritorious claim. (Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 7/1/04)
CA2 Upholds BIA's AWO Procedure
With very little discussion, the court held that the BIA’s affirmance without opinion (AWO) procedure does not constitute an abuse of discretion. (Xusheng Shi v. BIA, 7/1/04)
AILA’s Statement on Recent Supreme Court Decisions Supporting Due Process
AILA’s statement on the Supreme Court’s 6/28/04 decisions in which the Court held that U.S. citizens subjected to indefinite detention as enemy combatants and noncitizens jailed at the Guantanamo Naval Base must be permitted to challenge their detention in court.
Supreme Court Finds Foreign Nationals Held at Guantanamo Entitled to Judicial Review of Custody
The Supreme Court held that U.S. Courts have jurisdiction to review the legality of the custody of foreign nationals detained as "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. (Rasul v. Bush, 6/28/04)
Supreme Court Denies Padilla Case on Jurisdictional Grounds
The Court held that the petition should have been filed in the jurisdiction where Padilla was held. The Court did not reach the merits; however, it held in Hamdi and Rasul, that U.S. citizens held as "enemy combatants" are entitled to review. (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 6/28/04)
Supreme Court Finds Enemy Combatant Entitled to Opportunity to Contest Detention
The Court held that a US citizen “enemy combatant” is entitled to notice of the factual basis for this classification and to contest the claim before a neutral decisionmaker. (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 6/28/04)
CA3 Finds IJ Erroneously Disregarded Unauthenticated Evidence
The court reversed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination which was based, in part, on the IJ’s failure to consider documentary evidence that did not meet the authentication requirements in 8 CFR §287.6. (Gui Cun Liu v. Ashcroft, 6/28/04)
CA3 Extends St. Cyr to Pre-IIRIRA Trial Convictions
Holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in St. Cyr is not limited to guilty pleas, the court found that individuals who relied on the availability of §212(c) pre-IIRIRA to turn down a plea agreement and sustain a trial may apply for §212(c) relief. (Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 6/28/04)
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004
AILA’s section-by-section analysis of the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 (CLRA) (S. 2528/H.R. 4591), introduced on 6/16/04 by Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Berman (D-CA).
CA9 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Fraud Waiver
Court finds a review of the decision affirming statutory ineligibility for an INA § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver would be futile because of the alternative holding that even if the petitioner were eligible, he wouldn't merit a favorable exercise of discretion. (San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 6/23/04)
ICE Memo on Removal Proceedings Involving Aliens with Military Service
A 6/21/04 memo from Marcy Foreman, ICE Acting Director, Office of Investigations, amending ICE policy on commencement of proceedings against aliens with military service, outlines factors to be considered in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.