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
CA5 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Where BIA Found Petitioner Had Failed to Pursue His Rights Diligently
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Mexican petitioner’s motion to reopen, which was filed seven years after the entry of his removal order, was untimely and not entitled to equitable tolling. (Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 8/24/20)
CA1 Finds Petitioner’s Conviction in Massachusetts for Drug Possession with Intent to Distribute Was an Aggravated Felony
The court held that the petitioner’s Massachusetts’ drug conviction for possession with the intent to distribute amounted to “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” and was thus an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(B). (Soto-Vittini v. Barr, 8/24/20)
CA1 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Motion to Reconsider Where Petitioner’s VAWA Self-Petition Was Pending
Where the petitioner had premised his motion to reopen on a pending Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petition, the court upheld the denial of his motion to reconsider, holding that the BIA did not err by finding he had failed to make a prima facie case. (Franjul-Soto v. Barr, 8/24/20)
CA9 Says Petitioner Seeking to Reopen Proceedings Was Not Required to Attach a New Application for Relief
The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in finding that a noncitizen who seeks to reopen an earlier application for relief, and attaches that application to the motion, has failed to attach the “appropriate application for relief” under 8 CFR §1003.2(c)(1). (Aliyev v. Barr, 8/24/20)
Senators Call for GAO Investigation into the Politicization and Mismanagement of Immigration Courts as COVID-19 Crisis Rages
On 8/21/20, Senators Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), and Hirono (D-HI) led all Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats in sending a request to the GAO to investigate the politicization of the immigration courts and EOIR’s mismanagement of the immigration courts during the COVID-19 pandemic.
USCIS Issues Guidance on Implementing DHS Acting Secretary’s July 28, 2020, Memorandum on DACA
USCIS provided guidance on how it will implement DHS Acting Secretary’s 7/28/20 DACA memo. Among other things, USCIS will reject all initial DACA requests from individuals who have never received DACA and will limit grants of deferred action and employment authorization to no more than one year.
TRAC Reports Immigration Court Completions Remain at Historic Lows Through July 2020
TRAC reports canceled hearings due to COVID-19 have increased delays in immigration court, which has a backlog of 1,233,307 and completed only 5,960 cases in 7/20. Further, between 4/20 and 7/20, DHS issued a total of 111,752 new NTAs, while 347,450 immigrants still await master calendar hearings.
CA3 Says It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Discretionary Denial of Petitioner’s Motion for Certification of Late-Filed Appeal
Concluding that the “settled course exception” did not apply in the context of the case, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to decline to self-certify the petitioner’s late-filed appeal. (Abdulla v. Att’y Gen., 8/20/20)
CA8 Affirms Denial of EAJA Attorney’s Fees Where Government’s Position Was Substantially Justified
The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the government’s litigation position was substantially justified, and thus affirmed the district court’s order denying the petitioner’s attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). (Garcia v. Barr, 8/20/20)
CA11 Says It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Petitions Except to Extent They Raise Constitutional Claims or Questions of Law
The court held that it is precluded under INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i) from reviewing any judgment regarding the granting of relief under INA §§212(h), 212(i), 240A, 240B, or 245, except to the extent that such review involves constitutional claims or questions of law. (Patel v. Att’y Gen., 8/19/20)
CA9 Finds Petitioner’s California Burglary Conviction Does Not Render Him Removable Under Sessions v. Dimaya
The court held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Sessions v. Dimaya negated the BIA’s ground of removal—specifically, that the petitioner was removable because his California burglary conviction was a crime-of-violence aggravated felony. (Cheneau v. Barr, 8/19/20)
GAO Says ICE Should Enhance Its Use of Facility Oversight Data and Management of Detainee Complaints
GAO examined what ICE does with oversight inspection data and information from detainee complaints and found that ICE doesn’t comprehensively analyze inspection or complaint information to identify trends in deficiencies, and that ICE doesn’t have reasonable assurance that complaints are addressed.
DHS OIG Says Children Waited for Extended Periods in Vehicles to Be Reunified with Their Parents at ICE’s Port Isabel Detention Center
DHS OIG confirmed that due to ICE’s lack of preparedness and underestimation of required resources, some children were held in vehicles or detention cells for extended periods of time, in many cases overnight, before being reunited with their parents at the Port Isabel Detention Center in July 2018.
CA2 Finds BIA Erred in Holding That Petitioner’s Insurance Fraud Offense Caused More Than $10,000 in Victim Losses
Granting the petition for review, the court held that the BIA had failed to satisfactorily justify its conclusion that the losses suffered by the victims of the petitioner’s insurance fraud offense had exceeded $10,000. (Rampersaud v. Barr, 8/19/20)
The Attorney General Solicits Amicus Briefs in Matter of A-M-R-C-
Referring a BIA decision to himself, the AG invites amicus briefs on issues related to effect of time of referral; serious nonpolitical crime bar and persecutor bar; and due process issues in respondent’s in absentia trial. Matter of A-M-R-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 7 (AG 2020). Amicus briefs due 9/29.
CA3 Finds No Categorical Match Between Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse in Pennsylvania and Corresponding Federal Crime
The court concluded that there was not a categorical match between the petitioner’s statute of conviction, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in Pennsylvania, and the corresponding generic federal crime, sexual abuse of a minor under INA §101(a)(43)(A). (Cabeda v. Att’y Gen., 8/18/20)
CA4 Applies Barton v. Barr to Hold Petitioner Is Ineligible for Cancellation of Removal
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Barton v. Barr, the court held that petitioner, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who had committed an INA §212(a)(2) offense, was ineligible for cancellation of removal even though he was not seeking admission. (Argueta v. Barr, 8/18/20)
CA2 Says Conviction for Felony Possession of Narcotics with Intent to Sell in Connecticut Is a CIMT
The court held that the petitioner’s convictions for felony possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §21a-277(a)(1) qualified as crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). (Mota v. Barr, 8/17/20)
CA9 Remands Asylum Claims of Cameroonian Petitioner Who Lived in Hiding for a Year After Being Ordered to Marry Village Chieftain
Finding that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s denial of asylum and related relief, the court held that petitioner’s ability to elude her pursuers did not establish that she would be able to avoid persecution or torture by relocating within Cameroon. (Akosung v. Barr, 8/14/20)
AILA Submits Comments Opposing EOIR’s Proposed Revision to the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
AILA submitted comments opposing EOIR’s proposed revision to Form I-589 and accompanying instructions. AILA noted that the revision, which lacks clarity, would increase time and cost burdens on applicants and would ultimately result in refugees losing their ability to seek protection in the U.S.
CAP Publishes Report on Restoring Integrity and Independence at DOJ
The Center for American Progress issued a report on restoring integrity and independence at DOJ, including restoring fairness in immigration proceedings. The report calls attention to DOJ’s interference with immigration judges’ independence and the issuance of legal opinions reversing settled law.
AILA, the Council, and Partners Submit Amicus Brief to SCOTUS on Two-Step Notice Process in Niz-Chavez v. Barr
AILA and partners submitted an amicus brief to SCOTUS in Niz-Chavez v. Barr, arguing that the government’s two-step notice practice distorts the congressional scheme and undermines fundamental fairness. The brief includes examples of DHS’s use of fake dates which has led to chaos in courts.
CA9 Finds Petitioner Was Not “Admitted” Under INA §240A(a) When Approved as a Derivative Beneficiary of VAWA (Withdrawn)
Denying the petition for review, the court held that petitioner was not “admitted” within the meaning of the cancellation of removal statute when he was approved as a derivative beneficiary of his mother’s self-petition VAWA. (Enriquez v. Barr, 8/13/20, withdrawn 3/1/21)
CA9 Says Petitioner’s Conviction for Second-Degree Murder in California Is an Aggravated Felony
Applying the modified categorical approach, the court held that the petitioner’s second-degree murder conviction under California Penal Code §187(a) constituted an aggravated felony under the INA that rendered him removable. (Gomez Fernandez v. Barr, 8/13/20)
CA11 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Ethnic Tamil Petitioner Who Alleged Persecution by Sri Lankan Army
The court found that both the BIA and the IJ had explicitly considered whether the petitioner’s Tamil ethnicity or his imputed political opinion could have been one central reason for his alleged persecution by the Sri Lankan army. (Lingeswaran v. Att’y Gen., 8/13/20)