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
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.
ICE Memo on the Issuance of NTAs, Administrative Orders, and Reinstatements
A 6/21/04 memo from ICE’s Office of Investigations Acting Director Marcy Forman on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the issuance of Notices to Appear, Administrative Orders, and Reinstatement of Final Removal Orders for individuals with U.S. military service.
ICE Announces Alternative Detention Program (Updated 6/18/04)
On June 17, 2004, ICE announced a detention pilot program to be conducted through a contractor company. ICE intends to place up to 200 individuals in each of 8 cities in alternative detention, such as electronic monitoring, home visits, work visits and telephone reporting.
EOIR Letter Discusses National Video Immigration Court
EOIR Director Kevin Rooney responds to letter from immigration groups, including AILA and AILF, regarding the upcoming national video immigration court.
ICE Detainee Transfer Standards
ICE policy on transfer of detainees detailing the procedures and notification requirements to followed when transferring a detainee. Courtesy of Christina DeConcini.
In Video Hearing Held in Two Circuits, CA7 Holds Petition for Review is Filed in IJ's Location
CA7 ruled that when an immigration hearing is simultaneously conducted in two different circuits as a result of video teleconferencing, INA § 242(b)(2) requires the filing of petitions for review in the circuit where the IJ was located and the order was issued. (Ramos v. Ashcroft, 6/15/04)
Revised BIA Practice Manual Now Available
EOIR has updated its BIA Practice Manual and Q&As.
EOIR to Start National Video Immigration Court
EOIR announced at the 2004 AILA annual conference that, on July 19, 2004, it will start a national immigration court to handle by video hearing overflow cases from other courts. It will start with the New Orleans docket. Charles Adkins-Blanch and David Neal will be the judges.
CA4 Finds it Lacks Authority to Reinstate or Stay Voluntary Departure Period in Permanent Rule Cases
The Fourth Circuit reasoned that IIRIRA’s changes to the INA, including the elimination of judicial review over the denial of a request for voluntary departure, withdrew the court’s ability to reinstate or stay the voluntary departure period. (Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 6/10/04)
CA9 Limits Review to Official Record in Domestic Violence Removability Determination
Using the categorical approach set forth by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States, CA9 held that the IJ erred when he considered facts regarding petitioner’s domestic violence conviction which were not part of the official record of conviction. (Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 6/10/04)
CA1 on Jurisdiction Over IIRIRA Transitional Rule Cases
In transitional rule cases, judicial review is not barred by IIRIRA §309(c)(4)(G) unless the individual is charged with a criminal offense referenced in that section and is found deportable based on the offense. (Hernandez-Barrera v. Ashcroft, 6/9/04)
CA8 Finds Reasonable Cause Warrants Reopening In Absentia Order
CA8 found that the combination of traffic, petitioner’s inability to locate the immigration court and her child’s illness constituted reasonable cause warranting reopening of her in absentia exclusion order. (De Jimenez v. Ashcroft, 6/7/04)
CA9 Finds Unexcused Failure to Timely File Petition for Review Bars Habeas Corpus Review
CA9 addressed prudential exhaustion, holding that filing a petition for review constitutes a judicial remedy which, absent certain circumstances, must be exhausted before a petitioner may obtain habeas review. (Liang v. Ashcroft, 6/7/2004 & Acevedo-Carranza v. Ashcroft, 6/7/04)
CA9 Requires Claim-Based Exhaustion Before the BIA in Habeas Case
CA9 reasoned that mandating exhaustion in habeas actions did not conflict with the distinction between “judicial review” and “habeas corpus” in St. Cyr and held that petitioner failed to exhaust because he could have raised his claims with the BIA. (Sokha Sun v. Ashcroft, 6/4/04)
CA5 Holds That It Lacks Authority to Remedy an Unlawful Deportation on Habeas
While finding denial of petitioner’s prior habeas erroneous and his deportation thus unlawful, CA5 held it lacked current habeas authority to order the government to readmit petitioner or direct the BIA to provide petitioner with a new proceeding. (Zalawadia v. Ashcroft, 6/4/04)
CA1 Refuses to Reinstate Voluntary Departure Retroactively
The court found that its prior decision reinstating voluntary departure does not apply to retroactively to cure an overstay and affirmed the BIA’s denial of adjustment of status. (Khalil v. Ashcroft, 6/3/04)
CA9 Finds Bar to Review Where IJ Had Reason to Believe Illicit Drug Trafficking Activity
The Ninth Circuit held that the bar to judicial review of a removal order may apply when an Immigration Judge finds "reason to believe" the alien was involved in illicit drug trafficking. (Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 6/2/04)
CA9 Finds that Voluntary Departure Period is Automatically Stayed in Pending Transitional Rule Cases
CA9 held that in transitional rule cases, the voluntary departure period does not begin to run until the circuit court’s mandate issues. (Elian v. Ashcroft, 6/2/04)
AILA/AILF Letter to EOIR on National Video Immigration Court
AILA, AILF and other organizations express to EOIR their concerns about the upcoming national video immigration court.
CA9 Adopts BIA’s Test for Determining Whether an Individual Has Effectuated an “Entry” Under Pre-IIRIRA Law
CA9 held that no entry was effectuated under former INA § 101(a)(13) when petitioner was detained before exiting the secondary inspection area (Sidhu v. Ashcroft, 5/27/04); and when INS failed to promptly issue a parole extension (Mariscal-Sandoval v. Ashcroft, 5/28/04)
CA9 Denies Motion for Stay of Voluntary Departure Period Filed After Expiration of Such Period
The Court reiterated that a petition for review does not automatically stay the voluntary departure period, and found that a Motion to Stay filed after the period expired is essentially a request to extend or reinstate the period. (Garcia v. Ashcroft, 5/27/04)
CA2 Says St. Cyr Does Not Extend to Conviction After Trial
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. St. Cyr, that the repeal of §212(c) may not be applied retroactively to persons who pleaded guilty to deportable offenses, does not extend to persons convicted after trial. (Thom v. Ashcroft, 5/27/04)
CA11 Holds that Individuals Must Show Prejudice in MTRs Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
CA11 held that individuals who file motions to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate in their motion how their prior counsel’s actions (or inactions) prejudiced their removal proceeding. (Dakane v. US Attorney General, 5/25/04)
CA3 Finds No Jurisdiction to Extend or Reinstate Expired Voluntary Departure
The court found no jurisdiction to extend or reinstate a period of voluntary departure that expired during pendency of an appeal, but a motion to stay the voluntary departure period based on inherent equitable powers may still apply. (Reynoso-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 5/25/04)
CA7 Reveals Government Procedures for Notifying Local Immigration Officials of Stay Orders
Noting the government’s failure to properly convey notice of a stay order, CA7 discussed the government’s procedures for communicating such stay orders to the appropriate local immigration office, and cited CA9's email notification system was cited as a model. (Dimitrov v. Ashcroft, 5/24/04)