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 Substantial Evidence Supported BIA’s Implausibility Findings with Respect to Petitioners’ Testimony
Upholding the denial of asylum to petitioners, an Armenian family, the court held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination as to the husband based on implausibilities in the record, and as to the wife based on evasive testimony. (Lalayan v. Garland, 7/13/21)
OPLA Miami Scheduling, Attorney/Client Assignments (July 12 - August 6, 2021)
OPLA Miami scheduling for all non-detained from July 12 to August 6, 2021. These assignments were based upon dockets published by EOIR.
CA5 Grants Stay Pending Review of Petition to Political Dissident in India
The court found that the IJ’s incredibly high denial rate for asylum applications, along with her noncompliance with Matter of R-K-K-, presented a substantial likelihood that petitioner would be entitled to relief upon full consideration by a merits panel. (Singh v. Garland, 7/12/21)
CA7 Upholds Denial of Asylum Based on Political Opinion to Ukrainian Petitioner
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner’s experience in Ukraine did not rise to the level of persecution, and that she had failed to show that the new Ukrainian government would persecute her if she returned. (Chuchman v. Garland, 7/12/21)
CA8 Holds That IJ Articulated Specific and Cogent Reasons for Concluding That Petitioner Was Not Credible
The court upheld the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum, finding that the IJ had articulated specific, cogent reasons for concluding that the petitioner’s testimony was not credible, and that those reasons were supported by substantial evidence. (Coto-Albarenga v. Garland, 7/12/21)
CA9 Remands Where IJ Failed to Credit Petitioner’s Specific Evidence of Taint
Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that the IJ erred by failing to credit evidence showing that proof of the petitioner’s alienage was tainted because it was obtained from his juvenile court records in violation of California privacy laws. (B.R. v. Garland, 7/12/21)
Takeaways from Johnson v. Guzman Chavez
In this blog post, AILA President-elect Jeremy McKinney highlights the recent Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, which he writes offers a takeaway “for practitioners is to push back when an agency employs Auer or Chevron deference as a shield protecting its faulty administrative dec
ICE 30-Day Extension of Comment Period on New “Flight Manifest/Billing Agreement”
ICE 30-day extension of a comment period previously announced at 86 FR 22246 on 4/27/21 on a new information collection titled “Flight Manifest/Billing Agreement.” Comments are now due 8/9/21. (86 FR 36292, 7/9/21)
CA2 Finds That IJ Considered Sua Sponte the Social Groups Raised by Petitioner on Appeal
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s withholding of removal claim, finding that the IJ sua sponte considered the social groups now identified by petitioner, and that the IJ’s decision to deny withholding was supported by substantial evidence. (Quintanilla v. Garland, 7/9/21)
CA4 Finds Honduran Petitioner’s Membership in Her Nuclear Family Was At Least One Central Reason for Her Persecution
The court held that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that she was persecuted in Honduras on account of her membership in her proposed particular social group, namely her nuclear family. (Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 7/9/21)
CA9 Says Conviction for Forgery in California Is Categorically a Crime “Relating to Forgery” Under INA §101(a)(43)(R)
The court held that petitioner’s forgery conviction under section 470a of the California Penal Code categorically constituted an aggravated felony offense “relating to forgery” under INA §101(a)(43)(R), thus rendering him ineligible for voluntary departure. (Escobar Santos v. Garland, 7/9/21)
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus Brief on the Expanded Definition of “Theft Offense”
AILA and partners submitted an amicus brief requesting the Third Circuit grant a petition for rehearing of their decision in K.A. v. AG, which expanded the category of “theft offense” aggravated felonies to include fraudulent takings.
Department of the Treasury Notice on Interest Rate for Immigration Bonds
Department of the Treasury notice that for the period beginning 7/1/21 and ending 9/30/21, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 0.02 per centum per annum. (86 FR 36189, 7/8/21)
CA9 Reverses Denial of Voluntary Departure Where NTA Lacked Date-and-Time Information
The court held that petitioner’s Notice to Appear (NTA)—which lacked the time and date of his removal proceedings—did not terminate his period of physical presence in the United States, and thus BIA erred in finding him ineligible for voluntary departure. (Posos-Sanchez v. Garland, 7/7/21)
CA8 Upholds BIA’s Conclusion That Petitioner Could Reasonably Relocate Within Guatemala to Avoid Vigilante Group
Upholding the denial of withholding of removal, the court found that petitioner had failed to establish membership in a particular social group, and that BIA did not err in determining he could reasonably relocate in Guatemala to avoid a vigilante group. (Bautista-Bautista v. Garland, 7/6/21)
CA9 to Rehear En Banc Case Involving Illegal Reentry Under INA §241(a)(5)
The court ordered rehearing en banc and vacated its prior decision in Tomczyk v. Garland, which held that the act of reentering illegally under INA §241(a)(5) requires some form of misconduct by a noncitizen rather than merely the status of inadmissibility. (Tomczyk v. Garland, 7/6/21)
CA5 Finds It Has Jurisdiction to Determine What Constitutes “Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship”
The court held it had jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that events that would befall the petitioner’s U.S.-citizen children if he were removed would not amount to “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as Congress intended the phrase. (Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 7/2/21)
ICE Issues Updated Guidance in Identifying and Monitoring Pregnant, Postpartum, or Nursing Individuals
ICE issued a directive stating that it should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation individuals known to be pregnant, postpartum, or nursing, unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances. Guidance effective 7/1/21.
CA2 Says Burden-Shifting Framework for Late-Filed Appeals Imposed by BIA in Matter of J.M. Acosta Is Unreasonable
The court concluded that the BIA’s interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) to require a noncitizen pursuing a late-filed appeal to make a merits-based showing at the notice stage is unreasonable. (Brathwaite v. Garland, 7/1/21)
CA5 Finds That Petitioner’s Conviction in Texas Fell Within BIA’s Definition of “Crime of Child Abuse”
Where the IJ ordered the petitioner removed due to his conviction for online solicitation of a minor in Texas, the court held that the BIA did not err in determining that his conviction was a removable offense under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) for a crime of child abuse. (Adeeko v. Garland, 7/1/21)
SCOTUS Grants Cert in Patel v. Garland
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Patel v. Garland to decide whether INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i) “preserves the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief.”
ICE Agrees to Continued Use of National Immigration Detention Hotline for At Least Five Years
Freedom for Immigrants (FFI) reached a settlement with ICE, under which ICE agreed to provide uninterrupted access to FFI’s National Immigration Detention Hotline for at least a five-year period and to pay FFI $100,970 in attorneys’ fees. (Freedom for Immigrants v. DHS, 7/1/21)
BIA Finds IJs May Exercise Discretion to Rescind In Absentia Removal Orders
The BIA rescinded the absentia order of removal, after finding that an IJ, who has properly entered an in absentia order of removal, has the authority to determine whether a late arrival constitutes “exceptional circumstances.” Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L- 28 I&N Dec. 318 (BIA 2021)
CA9 Upholds District Court Order Requiring DHS to Stop Detaining Certain Minors in Hotels for More Than Three Days
The court affirmed the district court’s order requiring DHS to apply the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement to certain minors detained in hotels for more than a few days pending their expulsion from the United States under the CDC’s Title 42 order. (Flores v. Garland, 6/30/21)
GAO Releases Report on ICE Efforts to Address COVID-19 in Detention Facilities
The GAO released a report on ICE efforts to address COVID-19 in detention facilities. As of March 2021, over 10,000 cases of COVID-19 were confirmed within immigration detention facilities, including eight reported deaths among detainees.