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 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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
CA7 Holds Illinois Conviction For “Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse” is “Sexual Abuse of a Minor”
The Court found that a conviction under 720 ILCS 5/12-16(b) (“aggravated criminal sexual abuse”) was properly classed as an aggravated felony u because the activity in which Petitioner engaged constituted “sexual abuse of a minor.”(Espinoza-Franco 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)
EOIR Memo on Good Moral Character and Filing Appeals in Detained Cases
EOIR memo 90-5, on applications which require establishing good moral character and filing appeal briefs in detained cases.
CA7 Finds Offense of “Aggravated Fleeing” is a CIMT
The Court held that a conviction for “Aggravated Fleeing from a Police Officer” in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-204.1(a)(1) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude and is thus a deportable offense. (Mei v. Ashcroft, 12/29/04)
EOIR Memorandum on Safe Third Country Implementation
The 12/29/04 memo provides guidance to Immigration Judges on their role in the implementation of the U.S. and Canada Safe Third Country agreement in the immigration courts.
CA9 Holds BIA Acted Ultra Vires In Issuing Order of Removal In the First Instance (Updated 5/21/07)
The Court held that the BIA exceeded its authority in entering an order of removal in the first instance after reversing the IJ’s grant of discretionary relief. (Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 12/28/04)
CA9 Says INA Does Not Bar Judicial Review of Denial of Withholding of Removal By One With Aggravated Felony Conviction
CA9 found jurisdiction to review BIA’s denial of withholding of removal, notwithstanding INA § 242(a)(2)(C), because denial of relief was not predicated on Petitioner’s having suffered a conviction for aggravated felony, but rather on merits of the claim. (Unuakhaulu v. Ashcroft, 12/20/04)
CA10 Rejects Equal Protection Argument for Treatment of Lapsed Foreign Drug Conviction As a Disposition
CA10 distinguished a “lapsed” conviction for drug possession under Korean law from a FFOA ruling because: Congress is less familiar with expungements under foreign law and the Petitioner received a longer period of probation than permitted under the FFOA. (Elkins v. Comfort, 12/20/04)
CA2 Grants Nunc Pro Tunc Relief to Afford Opportunity to Apply for §212(c) Relief
The court granted Petitioners the opportunity to apply for 212(c) relief where they were wrongly denied the opportunity and had accumulated more than five years of imprisonment for aggravated felonies. (Edwards v. INS, Falconi v. INS, 12/17/04)
CA2 Says No Review of MTR Denial Where Removal Order Is Based on Certain Convictions
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(C) precludes review of the BIA's denial of Petitioner’s motion to reopen where the underlying order of removal was based on Petitioner’s controlled substance/aggravated felony convictions. (Durant v. INS, 12/16/04)
CA6 Rejects Challenge to Removability Due to Petitioner’s Failure to Exhaust
The Court rejected Petitioner’s claim that his domestic violence conviction occurred prior to the effective date of IIRIRA since it wasn’t raised below, and held that ex post facto does not apply to civil immigration proceedings. (Csekinek v. INS, 12/15/04)
CA7 Finds That Grant of Stay of Removal Does Not Result in Automatic Stay of Voluntary Departure
CA7 rejected the argument that a grant of a stay of removal implicitly results in a stay of voluntary departure; a stay of voluntary departure may only be obtained via an explicit request to the Court after proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Alimi v. Ashcroft, 12/10/04)
Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) Memorandum "Remand Of Immigration Cases" dated December 8, 2004
Memorandum from Thomas W. Hussey, Director, Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), to all OIL attorneys, discussing circumstances and procedures where OIL should recommend remand of a matter pending in federal court in the interest of justice or to preserve DOJ credibility.