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 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)
USCIS Manual on Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
USCIS manual outlining issues related to crimes involving moral turpitude.
Better Data Needed to Ensure ICE Compliance with Zadvydas
Following a study of ICE's compliance with the Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas, the GAO recommends that ICE collect complete and accurate information to assure compliance, determine ICE deportation officer staffing needs, and provide guidance to deportation officers on prioritizing.
State Bar of Texas Meeting Minutes (4/30/04)
The 4/30/04 minutes from the last quarterly meeting of the State Bar of Texas, Committee on Laws Relating to Immigration & Nationality, address a variety of issues. The committee met with various directors and discussed current procedures, policies, staffing levels, and more.
CBP Memo Clarifying a 2002 “Zero Tolerance Policy” for Exercising Discretion
CBP 4/30/04 memo clarifying a 3/22/02 INS memo, “Zero Tolerance Policy” and reminding CBP directors that while discretion must be exercised consistent with homeland security concerns, appropriate and principled discretion should be exercised. Received through American Immigration Council FOIA.
CRS Report on Legislation on Immigration-Related Detention
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the detention of noncitizens, including changes related to the creation of DHS, authority for detention, when mandatory detention is warranted, detention statistics, and legislation in the 108th Congress related to detention.
EOIR Fact Sheet on the Immigration Court Process (Updated 4/28/05)
EOIR fact sheet addressing the immigration court process and outlining the types of immigration hearings, including removal, bond redetermination, relief from removal, asylum, expedited removal, CAT protection, and more.
CA5 Holds Conviction Under Drive-By Shooting Statute To Be a Crime of Violence
The Fifth Circuit held that a conviction under the Oklahoma drive-by shooting statute, for driving a vehicle from which a shot was fired, is a crime of violence and thus an aggravated felony. (Nguyen v. Ashcroft, 4/27/04)
CA3 Holds Parolees Are Subject to INA §238(b)
Rejecting the argument that INA §238(b) should apply only to nonimmigrants, the court held that a parolee can be subject to administrative removal without a hearing. (Bamba v. Rile, 4/27/04)
CA9 Withdraws Prior Decision Finding No Aggravated Felony in Drug Case
To review whether jurisdiction vests with the Court, CA9 withdrew its prior decision holding that a state felony drug offense is not an aggravated felony unless the offense contains a drug trafficking element or is punishable under federal law. (Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 04/26/04)
CA5 Upholds Regulation Barring Parolees Who Are “Arriving Aliens” From Adjusting While In Removal Proceedings
Joining the Eight Circuit and rejecting the rationales of the First, Third, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, the court upheld the validity of 8 CFR §1245.1(c)(8) as “a valid exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion under [INA §245(a)].” (Momin v. Gonzales, 4/24/06)
CA9 Holds Failure to Notify Petitioner of Impact of Departure Is Violation of Due Process
The Ninth Circuit held that application of the rule that a departure while a BIA appeal is pending results in withdrawal of the appeal, where the petitioner was not notified of the impact of the departure, violates due process. (Martinez De Bojorquez v. Ashcroft, 4/22/04)
CBP Memo: Enforcement Activities at Schools and Places of Worship
These two legacy border patrol memoranda relate to enforcement activities in schools, places of worship, funerals, and other religious ceremonies.
CA9 Applies Bar to Relief for Overstaying VD To Motion to Reopen Petitioner
The Ninth Circuit held that the bar to relief for overstaying voluntary departure applies to an individual who filed a motion to reopen for adjustment of status after the VD period ended but before the end of the 90-day period for a motion to reopen. (DeMartinez v. Ashcroft, 4/16/04)
CA9 Finds Due Process Violation in Proceeding After Withdrawal of Counsel
The Ninth Circuit found that the IJ violated due process by permitting counsel to withdraw without advising petitioner of his right to counsel or asking for a waiver of the right, and continuing the hearing for only 2 hours after the withdrawal. (Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 4/15/04)
CA7 Finds Lack of Jurisdiction under INA Section 242(a)(2)(C)
Finding that it lacked jurisdiction under INA § 242(a)(2)(C), CA7 held that the denial of discretionary relief presented no substantial constitutional claim which would override the statutory bar to jurisdiction.(Dave v. Ashcroft, 4/14/04)
CA9 Construes Motion for Stay of Removal as Motion to Stay Voluntary Departure Period
CA9 held that a motion for a stay of removal filed during the pendency of a petition for review will be construed to include a motion to stay voluntary departure provided the motion for a stay of removal is filed prior to the expiration of the VD period. (Desta v. Ashcroft, 4/14/04)
CA9 Affirms Denial of Asylum and Withholding Based on Terrorist/National Security Grounds
CA9 found lack of jurisdiction to review an IJ determination that a petitioner who, the judge concluded, had engaged in terrorist activity, and held that substantial evidence supported a finding of ineligibility for withholding as a likely danger to security. (Bellout v. Ashcroft, 4/12/04)
CA9 Finds It Has Jurisdiction to Review Discretionary Denial of Motion to Reopen
The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review a motion to reopen by a respondent granted voluntary departure who sought to resurrect an abandoned adjustment application based on his relationship to a USC stepfather. (Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 4/7/04)
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)
CA2 Says AEDPA §440(d) May Have Impermissible Retroactive Effect
The court held that AEDPA §440(d) may have an impermissible retroactive effect if applied to persons with pre-AEDPA aggravated felony jury trial convictions, and remanded to determine whether individual §212(c) reliance is required (Restrepo v. McElroy, 4/1/04)
CA9 Affirms Denial of Untimely Motion to Reopen, But Remands for CAT Claim
CA9 held that a change in asylum law does not constitute "changed circumstances" for an untimely motion to reopen, but remanded on holding that torture for CAT purposes may occur while in the custody or physical control of public officials or private individuals. (Azanor v. Ashcroft, 4/1/04)
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)