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
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.
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)
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)
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 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 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.
CA5 Holds Oklahoma Sexual Battery Conviction is a Crime of Violence
Reviewing the elements of the relevant statutory provision, CA5 held that a conviction for sexual battery under Oklahoma law constituted a "crime of violence" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and thus an aggravated felony as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(F). (Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 6/21/04)
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.
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)
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.
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)