Featured Issue: Representing Clients Before ICE
This resource page combines resources for attorneys representing clients before ICE. For information about why AILA is calling for the reduction and phasing out of immigration detention, please see our Featured Issue Page: Immigration Detention and Alternatives to Detention.
Quick Links
- Seeking Stays of Removal
- AILA Practice Pointers and Alerts (continually updated)
- Practice Advisory: Representing Detained Clients in the Virtual Landscape
- Practice Pointer: How to Locate Clients Apprehended by ICE
- Practice Pointer: Preparing for an Order of Supervision Appointment with ICE-ERO
- AILA ICE Liaison Agenda and Meeting Minutes
Communicating with OPLA, ERO, and CROs
The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) includes 1300 attorneys who represent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in immigration removal proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). OPLA litigates all removal cases as well as provides legal counsel to ICE personnel. At present, there are 25 field locations throughout the United States.
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) manages all aspects of immigration enforcement from arrest, detention, and removal. ERO has 24 field office locations. ERO also manages an “alternative to detention” program that relies almost exclusively on the “Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP)” to monitor individuals in removal proceedings.
Since 2016, ICE has had an Office of Partnership and Engagement (formerly Office of Community Engagement) to be a link between the agency and stakeholders. As part of this office, Community Relations Officers (CROS) are assigned to every field office to work with local stakeholders such as attorneys and nonprofit organizations.
*Headquarters does not provide direct contact numbers or emails for individual employees.* (AILA Liaison Meeting with ICE on April 26, 2023)(AILA Doc. No. 23033004). However, attorneys can contact Chapter Local ICE Liaisons as they may have this information provided to them via local liaison engagement.
- DHS/ICE/OPLA Chief Counsel Contact Information [last updated in 2024, this list no longer appears on ICE.gov as of 1/27/25]
- Contact Information for Local OPLA Offices [last updated in 2024, this information no longer appears on ICE.gov as of 1/27/25]
- ERO Field Offices Contact Information*
- OPE Community Relations Officers
- ICE Check-In Scheduling Website
- ICE Online Change of Address Website
Latest on Enforcement Priorities & Prosecutorial Discretion
Executive Order 14159 (90 FR 8443, 1/29/25) directs DHS to set priorities that protect the public safety and national security interests of the American people, including by ensuring the successful enforcement of final orders of removal, enforcement of the INA and other Federal laws related to the illegal entry and unlawful presence of [noncitizens] in the United States and the enforcement of the purposes of this order. Given the January 25, 2025, confirmation of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, a memorandum detailing enforcement priorities may be issued in the coming weeks.
An unpublished ICE memo from acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello entitled “Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or near Courthouses” makes reference to targeted noncitizens and includes:
- National security or public safety threats;
- Those with criminal convictions;
- Gang members;
- Those who have been ordered removed from the United States but have failed to depart; and/or
- Those who have re-entered the country illegally after being removed.
Procedures and email inboxes created under the Biden Administration to request Prosecutorial Discretion no longer appear on the ICE website. AILA members are encouraged to review current DOJ regulations entitled “Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings” for alternative basis for seeking termination or administrative closure.
Access to Counsel
- ERO eFile:
- An online system developed to electronically file G-28s with ERO. Attorneys and accredited representatives may register for ERO eFile accounts and may also sponsor law students and law graduates who work under their supervision. See AILA’s practice alert (AILA Doc. No. 24051506) for more information.
- ICE Attorney Information and Resources Page
- AILA Practice Alert: Updates to the ICE Attorney Information and Resource Page
Filing Administrative Complaints on Behalf of Detained and Formerly Detained Clients
- Online Intake Form for the Detention Ombudsman (myOIDO)
- Available for complaints for issues in ICE and CBP Custody nationwide, including to submit complaints about access to counsel problems on behalf of currently or previously detained clients.
- Online Complaint Form for DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL)
- Oversight of Immigration Detention: An Overview - May 16, 2022
(provides a list of agencies with which attorneys may file administrative complaints of detention center violations) - Immigration Judge Complaint Toolkit – August 31, 2022
- Practice Alert: Template for CRCL Complaint Regarding Failures to Provide Language Access – July 16, 2021
Selected ICE Policies and Current Status
For comprehensive comparison of current and prior ICE policies, please review the “Immigration Policy Tracker (IPTP).” The IPTP is a project of Professor Lucas Guttentag working with teams of Stanford and Yale law students and leading national immigration experts.
| Pre Jan 20, 2025 Status | Current Status |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Browse the Featured Issue: Representing Clients Before ICE collection
Practice Alert: New Immigration Fees Authorized by the Reconciliation Bill
This chart provides an overview of new immigration fees authorized by the "Reconciliation Bill" which is expected to be signed into law by the President on July 4, 2025. Fees should take effect immediately; however, AILA expects delays in fee collection until it can be operationalized by agencies.
DOJ Notice of Revision and Extension of Form EOIR-26
DOJ notice of revision and extension of Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal From a Decision of an Immigration Judge. The form is used to appeal an immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Comments are due 9/2/25. (90 FR 28815, 7/1/25)
CA3 Holds That Federal Conviction for Submitting False Claims to Government Was an Aggravated Felony Involving Deceit
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for submitting false claims to the government under 18 USC §287 was categorically a crime of deceit that cost the government more than $10,000, and was thus an aggravated felony that rendered petitioner removable. (Lanoue v. Att’y Gen., 7/1/25)
CA3 Remands for BIA to Apply Proper Legal Standard on Nexus for Religious Persecution
The court held that, by relying on both subordination– and animus-based tests in evaluating whether the petitioner was persecuted on account of his religion, the IJ and BIA applied the wrong legal standard for the nexus between religion and persecution. (Tipan Lopez v. Att’y Gen., 6/30/25)
DHS and DOJ IFR Regarding Civil Penalties for Certain Immigration-Related Violations
DHS and DOJ released an interim final rule (IFR) updating procedures for DHS to issue fines for noncitizens who do not depart during the voluntary departure period or after a final removal order, or are apprehended while “improperly” entering the U.S. Comments are due 7/28/25. (90 FR 27439, 6/27/25)
DHS and DOJ Announce Updated Process for Immigration-Related Fines
DHS announced a joint interim final rule with DOJ updating procedures for DHS to issue fines for certain immigration-related violations. The new rule will eliminate a 30-day notice period, allow DHS to send fines by regular mail, and move the appeals process from DOJ to DHS, among other changes.
EOIR Policy Memo Regarding Civil Penalties for Certain Immigration-Related Violations
EOIR Acting Director released a policy memo to provide guidance on DHS and DOJ’s interim final rule, “Imposition and Collection of Civil Penalties for Certain Immigration-Related Violations” as it relates to EOIR. Fines imposed under the rule will no longer be subject to appellate review by BIA.
EOIR Policy Memo 25-33 on Neutrality and Impartiality in Immigration Court Proceedings
EOIR Acting Director Sirce E. Owen issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 25-33 reminding Immigration Judges of their ethical and professional responsibility obligations to treat both parties in a neutral, unbiased, and impartial manner. Judges who do not may be subject to corrective or disciplinary action.
SCOTUS Rules 30-day PFR Deadline Not Jurisdictional, Subject to Equitable Tolling
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a BIA order denying deferral of removal in a withholding-only proceeding is not a final order of removal. The filing deadline to challenge a final order of removal is not a jurisdictional requirement and is subject to equitable tolling. (Riley v. Bondi, 6/26/25)
BIA Holds That Respondent’s Virginia Conviction for Indecent Exposure Was a CIMT
The BIA held that the respondent’s Virginia conviction for indecent exposure constituted a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) because the offense requires an “obscene display or exposure,” which necessarily involves a lewd intent. Matter of Mayorga Ipina, 29 I&N Dec. 110 (BIA 2025)
DHS Publishes Privacy Impact Assessment for the CBP Home App
CBP published a Privacy Impact Assessment to address privacy risks in the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of the information collected by the CBP Home app, which may include the collection of U.S. citizens’ and lawful permanent residents’ information.
CA1 Upholds Denial of Cancellation Where Petitioners Failed to Show Requisite Hardship under INA §240A(b)(1)(D)
Upholding the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petitioners’ challenge to the agency’s factual findings underlying its hardship ruling under INA §240A(b)(1)(D), and denied the remaining legal claims. (Xiquin Xirum v. Bondi, 6/25/25)
CA6 Holds That Denaturalized Petitioner Is Not Removable for Crime Committed While a U.S. Citizen
The court held that the petitioner could not be removed under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) based on his conviction for a crime of child abuse that occurred while he was a U.S. citizen, even though he was later denaturalized. (Gonzalez Castillo v. Bondi, 6/18/25)
CA4 Upholds Cancellation of Removal Denial After Finding EOIR Policy Was Not Binding
The court held that EOIR’s OPPM 17-04 on reserved grants of cancellation of removal was not binding and thus did not create any enforceable right, and that, alternatively, it would not have required a ruling in the petitioner’s case within five days. (Zalaya Orellana v. Bondi, 6/24/25)
SCOTUS Allows DHS to Resume Third-Country Removals Without Advance Notice for Now
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of a district court ruling barring DHS from sending noncitizens to countries where they are not nationals without advance notice as litigation continues. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent. (Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. D.V.D., et al., 6/23/25)
CA2 Finds Petitioner Derived Citizenship from Mother’s Naturalization Where Paternity Was Not Established by Legitimation
The court held that the Salvadoran petitioner’s paternity was not “established by legitimation” under former INA §321, and thus found that the petitioner derived U.S. citizenship through his mother’s naturalization and was not removable. (Lainez v. Bondi, 6/23/25)
CA7 Upholds Asylum Denial After Finding Petitioner Could Reasonably Relocate within India
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner could reasonably relocate within India to avoid persecution, and thus that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. (Singh v. Bondi, 6/23/25)
CA11 Finds That Honduran Business Owners Targeted for Wealth Is Not a Cognizable PSG
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum, finding that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG)—Honduran business owners who are “perceived as having wealth” and are “target[s] of threats and extortion by … criminal gangs”—was overly broad. (Ponce v. Att’y Gen., 6/23/25)
BIA Finds Respondent’s Speculative Eligibility for Adjustment Insufficient to Warrant Termination of Proceedings
The BIA held that termination of removal proceedings is not warranted to allow a respondent to seek adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act based on speculation that USCIS will grant them parole under INA §212(d)(5)(A). Matter of Roque-Izada, 29 I&N Dec. 106 (BIA 2025)
CA9 Holds That BIA Abused Its Discretion by Declining to Remand to IJ for Competency Determination
Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that the record evidence, including head trauma, alcohol abuse, dementia, anxiety, depression, and memory disturbance, clearly contained indicia of incompetence warranting further inquiry by the IJ. (Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, 6/16/25)
Call for Examples – Affirmative I-589 “dismissed” by USCIS because applicant has a prior Expedited Removal Order (Form I-860)
AILA’s Asylum and Refugee Committee has received reports that some affirmative asylum applications are being dismissed by the Asylum Vetting Center on the basis of alleged expedited removal orders. The committee is currently gathering examples to better understand the scope and nature of this issue.
CA2 Holds That Clear Error Is Appropriate Standard of Review for Evaluating Hardship Determinations
The court held that clear error is the appropriate standard of review for evaluating hardship determinations, and upheld the agency’s finding that the petitioner failed to show the hardship required for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1)(D). (Toalombo Yanez v. Bondi, 6/13/25)
Practice Alert: EOIR Guidance to Immigration Judges on Dismissals and Other Adjudications
On May 30th, 2025, immigration judges nationwide received instructions on how to adjudicate the recent wave of dismissal requests from ICE OPLA. Read this practice alert for the text of the email and accompanying guidance.
DOJ Files Lawsuit to Stop New York’s Protect Our Courts Act
DOJ filed suit against the state of New York to stop the Protect Our Courts Act, a 2020 state law that prohibits federal officers from conducting civil arrests in or around courthouses without a warrant signed by a judge. (United States v. New York, 6/12/25)
BIA Vacates IJ’s Release on Bond Order After Finding Respondent Failed to Show She Was Not a Flight Risk
The BIA held that a grant of withholding of removal that is pending on appeal does not justify release on bond where the factors regarding flight risk weigh strongly against release on bond. Matter of E–Y–F–G–, 29 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2025)