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
BIA Vacates Grant of Cancellation Where Economic and Educational Hardships to Respondent’s Children Were Not Exceptional and Extremely Unusual
The BIA held that respondent had not shown that the economic, educational, and emotional hardships his 26– and 24-year-old children might experience if he was removed to Mexico would constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Matter of Arevalo-Vargas, 29 I&N Dec. 519 (BIA 2026)
EOIR Issues Policy Memo on Deadline for Appealing an Immigration Judge Decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals
EOIR Director Daren Margolin issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 26-02 to clarify that the appeal deadline for all immigration court decisions to the BIA is 30 days as a result of the Amica Ctr. for Immig. Rts. v. EOIR lawsuit. The memo also states ACIS should also reflect the current 30-day deadline.
BIA Finds Respondent’s Intent to Seek Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver Did Not Warrant Continued Administrative Closure
Where the respondent’s removal proceedings had been administratively closed for over 13 years, the BIA held that continued administrative closure was not warranted based on her intention to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. Matter of Medina Madrid, 29 I&N Dec. 514 (BIA 2026)
The Advocates for Human Rights File Lawsuit to Protect Public Access to Immigration Court Hearings
The Advocates for Human Rights filed a lawsuit against DOJ and EOIR in the DC District Court to challenge DOJ's increasing restrictions in public access to hearings at the Fort Snelling Immigration Court in Minnesota. (The Advocates for Human Rights v. Bondi et al., 3/12/26)
CA8 Holds That Substantial Evidence Is the Standard of Review for Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship Determinations
The court held that hardship determinations under the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard are reviewed for substantial evidence, and denied the petition for review as to the Mexican petitioner seeking cancellation of removal. (Alonso-Juarez v. Bondi, 3/12/26)
BIA Holds That IJ Errs in Terminating Proceedings Without Taking Pleadings Where Respondents Appear but DHS Does Not
The BIA held that where the respondents appear at an initial master calendar hearing, but DHS does not, the IJ errs in terminating proceedings without taking the respondents’ pleadings to the Notices to Appear (NTAs). Matter of Arana Castillo, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 2026)
Policy Brief: Americans Want Safe Communities, Not a Dangerous and Costly Deportation Agenda
The Administration's focus on pursuing its immigration enforcement agenda has endangered American communities while recklessly spending taxpayer funds. This policy brief questions this agenda and provides commonsense strategies to improve immigration enforcement and public safety.
EOIR Announces 42 Immigration Judges
EOIR announced the investiture of 42 immigration judges who joined immigration courts in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Bisexual Petitioner from Honduras Based on Lack of Persecution and Nexus
The court held that the respondent, a bisexual woman from Honduras, failed to establish past persecution, a nexus to a protected ground, or that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect her from private actors. (Maldonado-Ruiz v. Bondi, 3/10/26)
CA9 Denies Petitioners’ Opposed Motion to Stay Removal and Lifts Temporary Stay in Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi
The en banc court denied the petitioners’ opposed motion to stay removal pursuant to Nken v. Holder and Leiva-Perez v. Holder, and lifted the temporary stay of removal previously entered pursuant to General Order 6.4(c) effective immediately. (Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, 3/10/26)
AILA Litigation Spotlight: Innovation Law Lab Wins Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
AILA members at the Innovation Law Lab won habeas relief for M.L.G.G., who was unlawfully arrested and detained by ICE without a warrant. The Oregon district court rejected tolling of her removal period, found due process violations, and ordered her immediate release.
Federal Court Blocks Key Portions of IFR Changing BIA Appellate Procedures
A federal court issued a summary judgement blocking key portions of the Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals IFR from taking effect, including provisions allowing summary dismissal of appeals and shortening the appeal deadline. (Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, 3/8/26)
CA9 Issues Temporary Stay of District Court Ruling on Bond Hearings
The court temporarily stayed a district court’s 12/18/25 declaratory judgment and 2/18/26 order which ruled that nationwide class members are entitled to a bond hearing and vacated Matter of Yajure Hurtado. (Maldonado Bautista v. DHS, 3/6/26)
BIA Holds Generalized Violence Cannot Rebut Past Persecution Presumption and Finds Access Device Fraud Conspiracy a Particularly Serious Crime
The BIA held that an IJ cannot rely on generalized violence to find the presumption of future persecution unrebutted after DHS shows a fundamental change in circumstances and that access device fraud conspiracy is a particularly serious crime. Matter of R-B-E-, 29 I&N Dec. 499 (BIA 2026)
Featured Issue: Establishing a Fair and Independent Immigration Court
Immigration courts face a profound structural problem—they operate under DOJ and are therefore extremely vulnerable to political interference. This page collects resources, updates, and opportunities to advocate for establishing an independent immigration court with the Real Courts, Rule of Law Act.
BIA Holds That IJ Erred in Finding Expert Testimony Persuasive and in Giving It Significant Weight
The BIA held that where an expert witness’ background and testimony reflect a reluctance to consider contrary evidence and an inability to impartially assess matters on removal to a country, an IJ errs in giving that testimony significant weight. Matter of D–J–L–, 29 I&N Dec. 485 (BIA 2026)
DOJ NPRM on Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against DOJ Attorneys
DOJ proposed rule that would give AG the right to review complaints and allegations made before a state bar against current and former DOJ attorneys and to request that the bar suspend investigations until DOJ completes its review. Comments are due 4/6/26. (91 FR 10780, 3/5/26)
EOIR Notice of Revision of Request To Be Included on the List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers
EOIR notice of revision of Form EOIR-56, Request To Be Included on the List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers for Individuals in Immigration Proceedings. Changes are non-substantive. Comments are due 5/4/26. (91 FR 10830, 3/5/26)
EOIR Comment Request on Extension and Revision of Change of Address/Contact Information Form
EOIR notice and comment request on extension and revision of Form EOIR-33, Change of Address/Contact Information Form. EOIR proposes to remove address form fields allowing the subject to designate a third party to receive mail from EOIR on their behalf. Comments are due 5/4/26. (91 FR 10829, 3/5/36)
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights et al. v. Noem et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25-cv-872 (JMC).
AILA’s amicus brief in Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights et al. v. Noem et al. argues that DHS’s unprecedented move to place parolees into expedited removal is unlawful, upends a decades old framework, forces people into detention, and blocks their path to permanent status.
AILA Files Amicus Brief in Case Challenging Matter of Soram
This brief in Rivera-Mendoza v. Bondi challenges the BIA’s ruling in Matter of Soram, under which a noncitizen may be deported for negligently creating a “sufficient” risk to a child, arguing it exceeds Congress’s 1996 intent to deport only for crimes of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
AILA Files Amicus Brief in Case Challenging Oklahoma H.B. 4156
In this brief filed in Padres Unidos de Tulsa v. Drummond, AILA urged the invalidity of Oklahoma's H.B. 4156, which purports to make presence without immigration authorization a state-law crime punishable by prison and expulsion from the state.
CA6 Upholds Adverse Credibility Finding and Rejects Pattern or Practice Claim as to Mauritanian Asylum Seeker
The court held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies, implausible testimony, and failure to corroborate, and that petitioner failed to show a pattern or practice of persecution of black Fulanis in Mauritania. (Sy v. Bondi, 3/3/26)
Vote Recommendation to Congress: Block Continued Funding for ICE and CBP and Restore Safety to American Communities
AILA sent an updated vote recommendation to Congress on 3/2/26 urging it to block any continued funding to ICE and CBP until an agreement is reached on enforceable reforms to stop their unlawful and dangerous practices and restore safety to American communities.
AILA Files Amicus Brief Opposing DHS Practice of Placing Parolees in Expedited Removal
AILA’s amicus brief in Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, et al. v. Noem, et al., argues that DHS’s unprecedented placement of parolees into expedited removal is unlawful. It abandons a decades-old framework, traps individuals in detention, and blocks their lawful path to permanent status.