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
CA2 Remands for BIA to Clarify Effect of IJ’s Inadmissibility Finding Made in Proceeding in Which Application Was Withdrawn
The court remanded for the BIA to explain what, if any, preclusive effect the IJ’s finding of inadmissibility—seemingly affirmed by the BIA despite the withdrawal of the petitioner’s application for admission—would be given in subsequent immigration proceedings. (Juras v. Garland, 12/17/21)
CA5 Finds Adverse Credibility Determination Was Supported by Substantial Evidence Apart from Inter-Proceeding Evidence
Despite misgivings about the IJ’s reliance on inter-proceeding evidence under Matter of R-K-K-, the court held that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence, and that the petitioner’s due process claims lacked merit. (Singh v. Garland, 12/17/21)
CA8 Finds BIA Applied Correct Legal Standard in Conducting Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship Inquiry
Upholding the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal, the court held that the BIA conducted an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship analysis that was future oriented, and did not focus solely on the current conditions of the petitioner’s daughter. (Garcia-Ortiz v. Garland, 12/17/21)
EOIR Announces 22 New Immigration Judges
EOIR announced the appointment of 22 new immigration judges (IJs) by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, including five Unit Chief Immigration Judges (UCIJs). Biographical information has been provided for each of them.
Congress Calls for Increased Oversight At CoreCivic Detention Facility In Torrance County
U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and U.S. Representatives Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) and Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) are calling on DHS officials to increase oversight on CoreCivic’s management of the Torrance County Detention Facility.
EOIR Amends PM 21-18 on Filing Deadlines in Non-Detained Cases
EOIR amended policy memorandum 21-18 to state that in cases involving non-detained respondents, amendments to applications and other supplemental filings can be submitted up to 15 days before individual calendar hearings, unless the immigration judge specifies otherwise. Effective 12/16/21.
CA9 Holds That an Individual’s Inadmissible Status Renders Their Reentry Illegal Regardless of Its Manner
The en banc court held that the petitioner, an inadmissible and previously deported noncitizen who was mistakenly waved into the United States by a border official, had illegally reentered the country within the meaning of INA §241(a)(5). (Tomczyk v. Garland, 12/14/21)
CA9 Declines to Rehear Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland En Banc
The court issued an order denying rehearing en banc of Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland, in which the court held that the BIA erred by relying on a probation report to conclude that the petitioner had been convicted of a particularly serious crime. (Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland, 12/14/21)
CA1 Upholds CAT Denial to Petitioner Who Claimed He Would Be Subject to Torture While “Imprisoned” in Haiti as a Criminal Deportee
Upholding the denial of petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, the court found that expert testimony concerning treatment in Haiti of criminal deportees did not address whether petitioner was more likely than not to be held in prolonged detention. (Bonnet v. Garland, 12/13/21)
EOIR Final Rule Implementing Mandatory E-Filing
EOIR final rule implementing mandatory electronic filing (e-filing) for cases before the immigration courts and the BIA. The rule also makes changes to the regulations regarding law student filing and accompaniment procedures. The rule is effective 2/11/22. (86 FR 70708, 12/13/21)
EOIR 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form EOIR-28
EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form EOIR-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the Immigration Court. Comments are due 1/10/22. (86 FR 70533, 12/10/21)
Resources on Lawsuit Challenging DHS’s One-Year Filing Deadline for Asylum Applications
Learn more about the Mendez Rojas v. Wolf final settlement. Following the district court’s approval of the settlement agreement, USCIS has begun sending notices to potential class members on how they can benefit from the injunction and on the 4/22/22 filing deadline.
AILA and Partners Send Letter to USCIS and ICE on Access to Client Records
AILA and partners sent a letter requesting that USCIS, ICE, and EOIR revise its regulations, policies, practices, and procedures for providing access to records of proceedings (ROPs) and digital audio recordings (DARs) and Alien Files (“A-Files”) in immigration court and USCIS proceedings.
Attorney General Refers Matter of B-Z-R- for Review
The AG referred case to himself and automatically stayed the decision for review, inviting amicus on whether mental health may be considered when determining if an individual was convicted of a “particularly serious crime.” Amicus due by 1/17/22. Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 424 (A.G. 2021)
DHS Final Rule Exempting “DHS/OIDO–001 Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman” System of Records from Privacy Act
DHS final rule exempting portions of the newly established “DHS/OIDO–001 Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman” system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. The rule is effective 12/9/21. (86 FR 69977, 12/9/21)
CA3 Says Failure to Include Date and Time of Hearing in NTA Did Not Require Termination of Removal Proceedings
The court held that the BIA properly denied petitioner’s motion to terminate removal proceedings even though her Notice to Appear lacked a specific date and time, and found that “Guatemalan women” was not a cognizable particular social group (PSG). (Chavez-Chilel v. Att’y Gen., 12/9/21)
Immigration Detention Ombudsman Now Accepting Complaints at Certain ICE Facilities
The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman’s Office (OIDO) is now accepting complaints from people in detention who are currently held at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, GA and Florence Correction Center in Florence, Arizona.
CA5 Says Any Error in BIA’s Analysis Had No Impact on Its Ultimate Conclusion That Petitioner Was Removable
Where the petitioner had pleaded guilty to violating Section 14:81 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, which proscribes “indecent behavior with juveniles,” the court upheld the BIA’s removal order, finding that any errors the BIA had made were harmless. (Ibrahim v. Garland, 12/6/21)
CA5 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen and Rescind on Basis That He Did Not Receive Actual Written or Oral Notice
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s factual findings that the petitioner’s affidavit testimony was untrustworthy and that the petitioner had provided immigration officials with a deficient address. (Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 12/3/21)
Practice Pointer: “Operation Horizon” and What to Do with Your Client’s Notice to Report (Form I-385)
AILA’s Asylum & Refugee Committee provides a practice pointer on the rollout of ICE’s “Operation Horizon” and how attorneys representing individuals who were never placed into removal proceedings upon release from CBP custody may be impacted.
CA10 Remands to BIA to Reconsider Asylum/Withholding/CAT Applications and to Apply the Clear-Error Standard
The court held that the BIA erred in (1) overturning the IJ’s grant of asylum, (2) rejecting the IJ’s credibility findings without applying the clear-error standard, and (3) sua sponte finding petitioner ineligible for withholding or deferral of removal. (Villegas-Castro v. Garland, 12/2/21)
CA10 Finds INA §241(a)(5) Barred BIA’s Consideration of Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen
The court affirmed the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to reopen under INA §241(a)(5), holding that the statute barred the motion’s consideration because the petitioner had illegally reentered the United States after being removed. (Tarango-Delgado v. Garland, 12/2/21)
EOIR 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Form EOIR-40
EOIR 30-day notice and request for comments on proposed changes to Form EOIR-40, Application for Suspension of Deportation. (86 FR 68286, 12/1/21)
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus Brief on the Applicability of INA § 240(c)(3)(B) to the Modified Categorical Approach
AILA and partners submitted a brief in response to BIA’s amicus invitation requesting to apply binding precedent limiting inquiry during the modified categorical approach to the Shepard documents and hold that INA § 240(c)(3)(B) applies to a determination of whether a conviction exists.
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim of Indian Petitioner to Consider Whether Certain Factors Sufficed to Support Credibility Determination
The court held that the bulk of the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility findings in the case were infirm, and remanded to the BIA to determine whether the few remaining factors were sufficient, in light of the totality of circumstances, to support such a finding. (Kumar v. Garland, 11/30/21)