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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
USCIS Memo Addresses Deferred Action for U Nonimmigrant Applicants
A 5/6/04 memo from William Yates, USCIS Associate Director for Operations, regarding VSC authority to assess deferred action for aliens seeking U relief while in removal proceedings.
CA1 Rejects Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
The court rejected Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim as inadequate where Petitioner’s affidavit did not adequately describe the scope of the attorney-client agreement. (Wang v. Ashcroft, 5/5/04)
This Week in Congress: May 3, 2004
This is an active week in Congress on immigration issues, with the introduction of a Democratic comprehensive immigration reform bill, and both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees reviewing issues of concern.
CA7 Upholds IJ's Instruction to Unprepared Counsel to Proceed on Relief Applications
The Court held that the phrasing of counsel's Motion to Expedite Hearing was the cause of any confusion regarding what would be heard at the expedited hearing, and thus there was no due process violation in the IJ's insistence on proceeding.(Kuschchak v. Ashcroft, 5/3/04)
CA9 Rejects Government's Arguments on Exception to Zadvydas' Indefinite Detention Bar
CA9 rejected the govt's argument of an exception to Zadvydas' 6-month limitation on detention of post-final order permanent residents for particularly dangerous individuals where there are circumstances, such as mental illness, that help to create the danger. (Tuan Thai v. Ashcroft, 5/3/04)