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
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)
CA3 Holds False Tax Filing Is Not an Aggravated Felony
The court held that a conviction for filing false tax returns does not fall within INA §101(a)(43)(M)(i), reasoning that (M)(ii), which classifies tax evasion as an aggravated felony, would be superfluous if (M)(i) were construed to apply to tax offenses. (Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 5/19/04)
EOIR FY2003 Statistical Year Book
EOIR FY2003 Statistical Year Book for the OCIJ, the BIA, and OCAHO, covering work during the past five years. The Year Book contains data and charts on, among other things, proceedings received and completed by type, disposition, and nationality.
Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act
Senators Hatch (R-UT), Kyl (R-AZ), Chambliss (R-GA) and Cornyn (R-TX) on 5/19/04 introduced the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act, which claims to “restore fairness to the immigration litigation process and integrity to our immigration system.” AILA opposes as a broad attack on judicial review.
CA8 Holds that It Lacks Authority to Review BIA Issuance of Affirmance Without Opinion
CA8 held it lacked jurisdiction to review the claim that the BIA improperly employed its Affirmance Without Opinion (AWO) procedure.(Ngure v. Ashcroft, 5/17/04)
CA5 Holds that Excessively High Bonds that Have the Effect of Preventing Release are Presumptively Unreasonable
CA5 held that a reasonable and “appropriate in the circumstances” bond is permissible under Zadvydas; and that a bond which prevents release because of inability to pay, resulting in potentially permanent detention, is presumptively unreasonable. (Shokeh v. Thompson, 5/10/04)
EOIR Chief Immigration Judge Defends Video Hearings
Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy defends the use of video hearings in response to a letter from Christina DeConcini of CLINIC.
CA3 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Denial of I-751 Waiver
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) barred jurisdiction to review the denial of an application for a waiver of the joint filing requirement for removal of conditions on permanent resident status under INA §216(c)(4). (Urena-Tavarez v. Ashcroft, 5/7/04)