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
Motion to Return Petitioner to the U.S. and Restore Status Nunc Pro Tunc
Sample motion to return Petitioner to the United States and restore his status nunc pro tunc, where his removal from the U.S. was in violation of a court ordered stay. (April 2004) (Miscellaneous Motion)
Motion to Enforce Court Order
Sample motion to enforce court order to restore Petitioner’s status nunc pro tunc and return Petitioner to the United States. (April 2004) (Miscellaneous Motion)
DHS Guidance on Length of Custody Before Determination to Charge and Other Detention Issue
A 3/30/04 memo from Asa Hutchinson, Border and Transportation Undersecretary, providing guidance on length of custody before a determination to charge, as well NTA service, post-order custody reviews and other related issues.
CA4 Holds Recission Proceedings Proper More Than Five Years After Adjustment
The Court allowed a deportability charge 5 years after LPR status was granted (on a ground that would have supported rescission if charged within five years of the grant) where the same grounds that justify deportation would also support rescission of status. (Asika v. Ashcroft, 3/29/04)
CA4 Upholds BIA's AWO Procedure
The Court upheld the affirmance without opinion procedure as a mere regulatory change that does not attach new legal consequences to past events. (Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 3/29/04)
ICE Announces Expansion of Pilot Detention Project to Atlanta and Denver
ICE will expand its "Hartford Pilot Project" to Atlanta and Denver as part of its "Endgame" plan. The project involves the detaining of foreign nationals immediately upon Immigration Judge orders of removal at Court hearings.
CA9 Requires Notice of Hearing to Both Minor and Adult to Whom the Minor is Released
In requiring notice to the adult, CA9 reasoned that "the regulatory framework ...contemplates that no minor alien under age eighteen should be presumed responsible for understanding his rights and responsibilities ... at final immigration proceedings." (Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 3/25/04)
CA9 Concludes that California Conviction for Mayhem with a Sentence Longer than One Year is a Crime of Violence
CA9 held that the statutory definition of mayhem implies a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the process of committing the offense, and a conviction for mayhem with a sentence longer than one year is a crime of violence. (Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 3/24/04)
CA2 Upholds BIA's Affirmance Without Opinion Procedure
The court found that neither the INA nor the Constitution requires appeals to be adjudicated by a three-member panel, the procedures do not compromise review of IJ decisions, and individuals are afforded minimum due process protections. (Zhang v. Ashcroft, 3/24/04)
DHS Reports to Congress on Asylum Seeker Detentions
Section 903 of the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA) requires the Attorney General to regularly collect data on detained asylum seekers. The DHS issued reports on overall numbers, countries of origin, gender, age, and detention facilities for FY1999 through FY2002.
CA1 Upholds Chinese One-Child Policy Asylum Denial
The court affirmed the IJ’s findings of adverse credibility and that a certificate submitted by Petitioner purporting to prove a forced abortion was fraudulent. (Qin v. Ashcroft, 3/15/04)
CA9 Concludes First Lawful Admission Date Governs in Grounds of Removal
CA9 held that the first lawful admission date constitutes the relevant admission date where there may be two or more possible admission dates, for purposes of deportability under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i). (Shivaraman v. Ashcroft, 3/12/04)
BIA Says Stalking Is a Crime of Violence
The BIA held that a stalking offense in violation of Ca. Penal Code §646.9(b), which proscribes stalking when there is a TRO, injunction, or other court order in effect, is an aggravated felony crime of violence under INA §101(a)(43)(F). (Matter of Malta, 3/11/04)
CA3 Finds No Habeas Jurisdiction to Review BIA's Discretionary Denial of Asylum
Consistent with a number of its sister circuits, the court upheld the BIA's discretionary denial of asylum, finding that discretionary determinations and factual findings are not within the scope of habeas review. (Bakhtriger v. Elwood, 3/10/04)
CA10 Dismisses Petition for Failure to Establish a Substantial Constitutional Issue
The Tenth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review denials of cancellation of removal applications only where a substantial constitutional issue exists in the denial. (Alvarez-Delmuro v. Ashcroft, 3/9/04)
CBP Directive on POE Secure Detention Procedures
A 3/9/04 CBP Directive, which was reviewed on 3/1/07, establishes a national policy for temporary detention of persons by CBP in secure areas at POEs. Guidance obtained through the CBP FOIA Library and supersedes a 7/26/01 directive.
DHS Proposes Rule Implementing ‘Safe Third Country’ Agreement
DHS proposed rule that would implement the U.S./Canada “Safe Third Country” agreement which, among other things, provides for a threshold determination to be made as to which country will consider the merits of a prospective asylee’s claims. (69 FR 10620, 3/8/04)
EOIR Responses to AILA's Liaison Questions (3/4/04)
Liaison issues addressed with EOIR included the publication of decisions, I-551 stamps, impact of pending petitions, status of the St. Cyr regulation, use of technology in courtrooms, e-filing, faxing of motions, scheduling of hearings, and periods of voluntary departure granted by the BIA.
CA9 Finds No Time Limitation on Motion to Reopen Under Former INA § 242B(c)(3)(B)
The Ninth Circuit held that neither the statute nor any BIA or Court interpretations place any time limits on filing a Motion to Reopen an in absentia order based on lack of notice under former INA § 242B(c)(3)(B). (Andia v. Ashcroft, 3/2/04)
CA9 Holds that Habeas Stay Request is Not Governed by 242(f)(2)
The Circuit Court held that it had jurisdiction in the interlocutory appeal, and that the section 242(f)(2) bar to enjoining removal applied only to permanent injunction requests, whereas the Habeas request was for a temporary injunction. (Faruqi v. DHS, 3/1/04)
Senators Urge President Bush to Protect Haitian Refugees
A 3/1/04 letter from Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), and Durbin (D-IL) to President Bush urging him to abide by our obligations under the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and provide protection to refugees of the crisis in Haiti.
U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Another Indefinite Detention Case
The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Crawford v. Martinez and consolidated it with Benitez v. Wallis to resolve a circuit split on the issue of whether Zadvydas v. Davis applies to non-admitted foreign nationals. (Crawford v. Martinez, 3/1/04)
AILA Comments on EOIR's Proposed Attorney Registration Regulation
AILA points out some potential pitfalls of the regulation proposed by EOIR that would require attorneys and representatives to register, in anticipation of electronic filing. Many thanks to Laura Lichter and Tammy Fox-Isicoff for their fine work on this comment.
CA1 Denies Asylum and Withholding Based on Firm Resettlement
The court found that the government established firm resettlement through the submission of a Venezuelan residency stamp in Petitioner’s passport and evidence that Venezuela had twice honored the stamp and admitted Petitioner. (Salazar v. Ashcroft, 2/26/04)
CA1 on Exclusionary Rule in Immigration Proceedings
The court refused to suppress Form I-213, Record of Deportable Alien, rejecting Petitioner's claim that the I-213 was completed by INS as fruit of Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, as well as in violation of INS regulations. (Navarro-Chalan v. Ashcroft, 2/25/04)