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 Advisory: “Particularly Serious Crime” Bars on Asylum and Withholding of Removal
IDP and HIRC provide a practice advisory with legal standards and sample case law determinations on the "particularly serious crime” bars on asylum and withholding of removal.
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Salvadoran Petitioner Threatened by MS-13 Gang Members Conducting Drug Deals
The court found that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that petitioner’s status as a “single, Salvadoran mother with no familial protection” was not a central reason for her persecution, and thus upheld the denial of asylum. (Lemus-Aguilar v. Garland, 8/12/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Ecuadorian Petitioners Targeted Due to Personal Land-Related Dispute
The court held that the petitioners had failed to establish a nexus between their membership in their proposed particular social group (PSG) consisting of the “Penafiel-Peralta Nuclear Family” and the persecution they suffered in Ecuador. (Penafiel-Peralta, et al. v. Garland, 8/12/24)
CA6 Says BIA Failed to Conduct Proper Circularity Analysis as to Petitioner’s PSG
The court held that, reviewing the record as a whole, the particular facts of the petitioner’s case showed that her proposed particular social group (PSG) consisting of “victims of domestic violence” was not circular. (Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip, et al. v. Garland, 8/9/24)
CA1 Finds Indonesian Petitioner Who Once Provided Material Support to Foreign Terrorist Organization Ineligible for Asylum
The court held that the BIA and IJ did not violate the Indonesian petitioner’s due process rights by finding that he was ineligible for asylum because he had once provided material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization called Jemaah Islamiya. (Jani v. Garland, 7/29/24)
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus on the "Realistic Probability" Test
AILA and partners submit an amicus brief to the Third Circuit, arguing that the "realistic probability" test should not apply in every categorical approach case because there are cases in which the statute of conviction is, on its face, broader than the generic federal offense.
CA4 Holds That Indian Petitioner’s Involuntary Commitment and Forced Electroconvulsive Therapy Did Not Amount to Persecution
The court held that the involuntary hospitalization of, and administration of electroconvulsive therapy to, the Indian petitioner, who had “a well-documented history of debilitating and dangerous mental illnesses,” did not constitute persecution for asylum purposes. (Joshi v. Garland, 8/8/24)
CA1 Upholds Adverse Credibility Finding as to Brazilian Petitioner Threatened by Drug-Dealing Neighbor
The court held that, in light of the inconsistencies between petitioner’s statements and her testimony, the IJ and BIA reasonably concluded that petitioner’s testimony was not credible found she had offered no adequate corroborating evidence. (De Oliveira Rodrigues v. Garland, 8/8/24)
Featured Issue: It's Time to Change the Lozada Standard
Use this page to learn more about the impact of the Matter of Lozada and how AILA wants the Lozada standard changed.
CA4 Concludes That IJ Failed to Adequately Consider Therapist’s Letter in Denying Cancellation of Removal
The court held that the IJ failed to consider key portions of a therapist’s letter that was central to the petitioner’s argument that her removal would impose exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on her daughter for purposes of cancellation of removal. (Garcia Cortes v. Garland, 8/7/24)
CA1 Finds That Guatemalan Petitioner Failed to Prove He Was Persecuted “On Account Of” a Statutorily Protected Ground
The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the Guatemalan petitioner did not prove persecution “on account of” a protected ground pursuant to INA §101(a)(42)(A), and thus upheld the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of asylum. (Gonzalez-Arevalo v. Garland, 8/7/24)
Join the Recently Created Crimmigration Interest Group
The intersection of criminal law and immigration law has become fundamental since Padilla v. Kentucky. This interest group is for members who are interested in those discussions and resources. Join today!
Think Immigration: How Noncitizens Are Disadvantaged at Arraignments by “Neutral” Practices and Procedures
DEI Scholarship recipient Asmaa Hamadan describes how the criminal justice system is failing to guarantee noncitizens due process, writing “The system should be reformed to ensure that an individual’s situation is assessed holistically and not discriminate… for factors they cannot change.”
ICE Ends Free Phone Minutes Program Due to Budget Constraints
During COVID-19, ICE provided 520 free phone minutes monthly for detainees due to paused in-person visits. Post-pandemic, in-person visits resumed, and virtual attorney access expanded. To save $10.2 million and address budget constraints, ICE ended the phone minutes program.
CA7 Finds IJ Did Not Abuse His Discretion in Denying Continuance Where Counsel Was Unprepared for Hearing
The court held that the IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate the petitioners’ due process rights by refusing to continue their hearing, and found that it lacked jurisdiction to reach their ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (Bustos-Millan, et al. v. Garland, 8/6/24)
CA1 Says BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Petitioner’s Bank Fraud Conspiracy Offense Was a Particularly Serious Crime
The court concluded that the BIA did not err in determining that the IJ adequately specified that the petitioner’s conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud was a particularly serious crime that rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal. (Lafortune v. Garland, 8/5/24)
CA9 Says Petitioner’s Past Harm Rose to Level of Persecution Where It Included Physical Beating Connected to Credible Threat (Withdrawn)
The court held that petitioner, a member of the Mann Party who faced death threats and a beating from members of an opposing political party in India, had showed that his past harm, when cumulatively considered, rose to the level of persecution. (Kumar v. Garland, 8/2/24, withdrawn 1/17/25)
ICE Guidance on Delegation of Parental Authority
ICE provides a “delegation of parental authority packet” that contains the appropriate forms to use for delegating parental rights to another person through “child” or “custodial” power of attorney.
CA9 Holds That Petitioner’s California Assault Conviction Was a Particularly Serious Crime
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that petitioner’s assault conviction was a particularly serious crime rendering him ineligible for withholding relief, and that BIA did not err in denying his Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim. (G.C. v. Garland, 7/30/24)
Think Immigration: Court Conundrum: Omaha Immigration Court Frequently Compromises Due Process Rights
In this blog post, Kelly Shanahan highlights an ACLU of Nebraska report detailing due process concerns in Omaha immigration hearings, and urging readers to tell Congress to remove EOIR from the Department of Justice and establish an Article 1 independent immigration court system.
Practice Advisory: Seeking Release of Clients Detained in Virginia Under Rodriguez Guerra v. Perry Settlement
The NIP, Amica Center, and the ACLU of Virginia provide a practice advisory on a proposed agreement in Rodriguez Guerra v. Perry, a class action challenging ICE ERO Washington Field Office's failure to abide by ICE's policy to immediately review the custody of certain detained individuals.
CA9 Vacates Grant of Habeas Petition After Finding District Court Erred in Exercising Jurisdiction over Petition
The court held that the district court erroneously exercised jurisdiction over the habeas petition, because the petitioner did not name his immediate custodian as the respondent and filed his complaint outside of the judicial district where he was confined. (Doe v. Garland, et al., 7/29/24)
CA5 Upholds Asylum Denial to Petitioner Who Alleged She Suffered State-Sponsored Persecution in Angola
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner, who alleged that she had been persecuted by the Angolan government due to her father’s anti-corruption activities, had not suffered state-sponsored persecution. (L.N. v. Garland, 7/25/24)
Think Immigration: I Wish People Knew Our Immigration Laws Haven’t Aged Well
As part of our “One Thing” series, Sandra Feist highlights specific examples of how our immigration laws do not serve the interests of American businesses or communities well and calls on Congress to move forward with immigration reform that would be reflective of today’s realities.
CA3 Transfers Petitions for Review to Sixth Circuit After Finding IJ Completed Proceedings in Ohio
The court concluded that the IJ had completed the petitioner’s proceedings in Ohio, that venue was proper in the Sixth Circuit, and that it was in the interests of justice to transfer the three petitions for review to the Sixth Circuit. (Castillo v. Att’y Gen., 7/24/24)