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
Think Immigration: A Look Inside DHS’ Family Expedited Removal Management Program
AILA Law Student Member Araceli Garcia describes how University of Texas Law students were able to help families in the expedited removal program and how the expansion of the FERM program has meant the need for counsel has only grown.
EOIR Announces Relocation of Orlando Immigration Court
EOIR announced that the Orlando Immigration Court will suspend regular court functions at its current location at the close of business on March 13, 2024, to prepare for the court’s relocation. Staff will remain onsite to accept phone calls and filings until March 15, 2024.
DHS Notice of Employment Authorization for Venezuelan F–1 Students Experiencing Severe Economic Hardship
DHS notice suspending certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Venezuela and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a direct result of the crisis in Venezuela. Action is effective 3/11/24 through 9/10/25. (89 FR 17500, 3/11/24)
OIDO Invitation to March Roundtable Discussions
The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman will hold two roundtable discussions in March to collect feedback. On March 14, it will hold a MyOIDO feedback webinar and on March 21, it will hold a legal access webinar. Notice includes registration information.
CA2 Finds That BIA’s Retroactive Application of Its “Minimum Constitutional Protections” Test Was Appropriate
The court held that the BIA’s retroactive application of its “minimum constitutional protections” test was appropriate, and thus concluded that the petitioner had twice been convicted of crimes for removal purposes under INA §101(a)(48)(A) and INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii). (Wong v. Garland, 3/11/24)
CA9 Remands for BIA to Properly Consider Whether Supporting Documents Independently Proved Petitioner’s Past Persecution Claim
The court held that the BIA did not properly evaluate whether the petitioner’s documentary evidence independently supported her claims of past persecution in her native Zambia on account of her sexual orientation. (Kalulu v. Garland, 3/11/24, amended 2/13/25)
CA5 Denies Rehearing En Banc in Mejia-Alvarenga v. Garland
The court denied the petition for en banc rehearing, but withdrew its previous opinion and substituted in its place a new decision that upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum as to the Salvadoran petitioner. (Mejia-Alvarenga v. Garland, 3/8/24)
CA8 Finds BIA Did Not Err in Vacating IJ’s Grant of CAT Relief as to South Sudanese Petitioner
The court held that the BIA did not err in rejecting the petitioner’s claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for deferral of his removal to South Sudan, finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture. (Yar v. Garland, 3/8/24)
CA11 Grants Rehearing in Case Concerning Retroactive Application of Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson
The court granted the petition for rehearing and withdrew its previous opinion, which held that petitioner’s modification order did not change his term of imprisonment for purposes of federal immigration law, and thus that petitioner was an aggravated felon. (Edwards v. Att’y Gen., 3/6/24)
CA10 Concludes That Women Business Owners in El Salvador Is Not a Cognizable PSG
The court found that the BIA did not err in denying petitioners’ motion to terminate, nor in denying their asylum claim based on finding no nexus and holding that “women business owners in El Salvador” is not a cognizable particular social group (PSG). (Miguel-Pena, et al. v. Garland, 3/4/24)
CA6 Says That Mexican Business Owners Is Not a Cognizable PSG
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal as to the Mexican petitioner, concluding that the petitioner’s proposed social group (PSG) of “Mexican business owners” was not legally cognizable. (Reyes Galeana v. Garland, 3/4/24)
CA8 Finds That Serious Nonpolitical Crime Bar Applies to Honduran Petitioner Who Transported Guns and Drugs for MS-13
Where petitioner admitted he had knowingly transported guns and drugs for the MS-13 gang on multiple occasions, the court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that he had committed a serious nonpolitical crime and was thus ineligible for withholding of removal. (Herrera-Elias v. Garland, 3/4/24)
CA5 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Motion to Reopen to Adjust Status Where Petitioner Had Been Granted Parole but Conceded Inadmissibility
The court held that because petitioner had conceded he was inadmissible under INA §212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and because his parole had no effect on his status as an applicant for admission, substantial evidence supported BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. (Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 3/4/24)
BIA Issues Ruling on Regulation Concerning Removal Proceedings Where Respondent Has Credible Fear of Persecution or Torture
The BIA held that 8 CFR §1240.17 applies only to those respondents placed in expedited removal proceedings whose applications for relief and protection were first adjudicated by USCIS and who were then placed in removal proceedings under INA §240. Matter of F–C–S–, 28 I&N Dec. 788 (BIA 2024)
CA9 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Mexican Petitioner Who Was Formerly a Member of the Southsider Gang
The court held that the BIA did not err in finding that the petitioner’s proposed social group—“Mexicans with mental health disorders characterized by psychotic features who exhibit erratic behavior”—lacked particularity, and thus upheld the denial of asylum. (Uribe v. Garland, 3/1/24)
Practice Alert: False Claim to USC Charge in Response to Contested Pleadings
AILA National ICE Committee responds to reports of OPLA trial attorneys accusing counsel of a false claim to U.S. citizenship on behalf of their client for contesting pleadings.
AILA and Partners Send Letter Urging End to Solitary Confinement in ICE Detention
AILA and partners sent a letter to the White House and DHS urging an immediate and public commitment to ending solitary confinement in ICE detention.
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Petitioner Who Feared She Would be Forced into Prostitution in Guatemala
The court found that the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioner, who feared that she might be forced to become a prostitute or sell drugs if she returned to Guatemala, had failed to meet her burden to show a nexus to a protected ground. (Esteban-Garcia v. Garland, 2/29/24)
Client Flyer: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
AILA provides an updated flyer for you to share with your clients to help answer basic questions about the status of the DACA program. There are two versions available: a generic PDF version and a customizable Word version.
ICE Announces New Online System for Filing G-28
ICE ERO announced a new web-based paperless system for immigration attorneys and accredited representatives to provide information about their eligibility to act on behalf of noncitizens in ICE custody through secure online communications.
Practice Alert: Implications of Matter of Aguilar Hernandez
On January 31, 2024, the Board ruled in Matter of Aguilar Hernandez that a Notice to Appear that lacks the date and time of an initial hearing cannot be remedied by DHS filing a Form I-261. AILA provides a practice alert on its implications.
CA7 Finds BIA Erred by Failing to Apply Clear Error Standard of Review in Reversing IJ’s Denial of CAT Relief
After first finding that it had jurisdiction, the court held that the BIA erred by failing to apply the required clear error standard of review in reversing the IJ’s denial of Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief to the Salvadoran petitioner. (F.J.A.P. v. Garland, 2/27/24)
CA8 Upholds BIA’s Denial of Motion to Reopen After Concluding Petitioner’s Objection to His Defective NTA Was Untimely
The court rejected petitioner’s arguments that BIA erred in not granting his motion to reopen and in finding his objection to the Notice to Appear (NTA) untimely, and misconstrued his motion as asking it to compel DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion. (Amador-Morales v. Garland, 2/27/24)
CA8 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen After Finding Recent Events in India Were Not Material Changes of Country Conditions
Where the petitioner claimed he was fleeing political persecution by the ruling party in India, the court held that recent events in India were not material changes of country conditions that could support the petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen and remand. (Singh v. Garland, 2/23/24)
BIA Finds Respondent Did Not Prove That State Court Vacated His Conviction Due to Defect in His Criminal Proceedings
The BIA held that, where the state court order granting the respondent’s motion to vacate did not indicate the reason for the vacatur, the respondent did not prove that the court vacated the conviction due to a defect in his criminal proceedings. Matter of Azrag, 28 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2024)