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
District Court Approves Settlement in Case Alleging Government’s Family Separation Policy Caused Minors Severe Emotional Distress
A federal district court in California approved the settlement of two minor plaintiffs’ claims, allocating each $220,000 and noting the amounts appeared to be the largest achieved yet by plaintiffs in cases relating to the family separation policy. (P.G., et al. v. United States, 11/18/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Salvadoran Petitioner Who Faced Death Threats from the 18-Gang
The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner, who had faced death threats from members of the 18-gang in El Salvador, lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution, and thus upheld the denial of asylum. (Cortez-Mejia v. Garland, 11/15/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Asylum as to Petitioner Who Suffered Domestic Abuse in Ecuador
The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner, who suffered domestic abuse in Ecuador, had failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution if she were to return to Ecuador. (Medina-Suguilanda v. Garland, 11/14/24)
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial as to Petitioner Who Received Multiple Extortionate Death Threats in El Salvador
The court upheld the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of asylum as to petitioner, who had been assaulted by armed assailants in El Salvador and received death threats, finding that he did not meet his burden to demonstrate harm rising to the level of persecution. (Urias-Orellana v. Garland, 11/14/24)
CA9 Holds That BIA Erred in Finding No Nexus Between Salvadoran Petitioner’s Persecution and His Political Opinion
The court held that BIA erred by concluding the petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the persecution he suffered and his political opinion, by mischaracterizing his proposed social group, and by improperly ignoring evidence. (Aleman-Belloso v. Garland, 11/13/24, amended 2/18/25)
CA3 Finds Substantial Evidence Supported Denial of Asylum as to Guatemalan Petitioner Who Was Abused by Violent Ex-Partner
The court rejected the petitioner’s particular social groups (PSGs) consisting of “Guatemalan small business owners, victims of extortion by gang members” and “Guatemalan women viewed as property and unable to escape their violent ex-partners.” (Manuel-Soto v. Att’y Gen., 11/12/24)
Practice Alert: G-56 ERO Call-in Letters and Form I-340 Notice to Obligor for Administratively Closed Removal Cases
AILA members have reported that ICE is issuing G-56 ERO call-in letters and Form I-340 Notice to Obligor to individuals with removal cases that are currently administratively closed. Please share your examples.
Think Immigration: What’s Changed in Immigration Law over the Last Two Years? What Hasn’t!
In this blog post, AILA member Elizabeth Montano details some of the many changes to immigration law and policy over the last two years as she explains why she turns to Kurzban’s Immigration Law Sourcebook for the comprehensive resource she needs to serve her clients.
Time: What Donald Trump’s Win Means For Immigration
Time provides a summary of President-elect Donald Trump's proposed agenda as it relates to American immigration policy.
CA1 Finds BIA and IJ Erred in Finding That Petitioner Failed to Demonstrate a Sufficient Likelihood of Torture in Jamaica
The court concluded that the agency’s likelihood-of-future-torture finding, which formed the basis of its determination that the petitioner was ineligible for Convention Against Torture (CAT) deferral, rested on an erroneously narrow legal definition of torture. (Morgan v. Garland, 11/5/24)
CA2 Holds That IJ Improperly Applied Framework for Protecting an Incompetent Concitizen’s Rights and Privileges
The court found that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that the IJ herself had implemented adequate safeguards to address the petitioner’s incompetency and protect his rights and privileges, and thus granted the petition for review and remanded. (Reid v. Garland, 11/5/24)
Think Immigration: Getting Back to Basics - How to Improve the Entire Immigration System
AILA Law Journal Editor-in-Chief Cyrus Mehta previews the fall edition writing, “Our immigration laws will not get better unless we continue to advocate and share our expertise about how our existing system’s weaknesses harm America.”
Practice Alert: Campos-Chaves and its Implications
AILA provides a practice alert on the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Campos-Chaves v. Garland.
BIA Holds That Respondent’s Enhanced Conviction When Considered as Combined Crime Qualified as CIMT
The BIA held that respondent’s compound conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in California, with a sentencing enhancement for fleeing the scene of an accident, was categorically for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Matter of Khan, 28 I&N Dec. 850 (BIA 2024)
CA5 Upholds No-Hardship Finding for Cancellation Purposes Where IJ Properly Considered Relevant Hardships in the Aggregate
The court upheld the BIA’s determination that the IJ did not err in denying cancellation of removal based on the petitioner’s failure to establish that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S.-citizen daughter. (Sustaita-Cordova v. Garland, 10/31/24)
CA6 Finds IJ Did Not Violate Any Obligation to Inform Petitioner of Her Potential Eligibility for a Fraud Waiver
The court held that petitioner’s failure to attend an interview, resulting in termination of her conditional permanent residence, was not sufficiently related to her fraudulent representations so as to render her “apparently eligible” for a fraud waiver. (Tukur Seldon v. Garland, 10/31/24)
CA11 Upholds Denial of Cancellation Where Petitioner’s Daughter Had Aged Out by the Time His Application Was Adjudicated
The court upheld BIA’s reaffirmance of its rule that a child who was under 21 years old when their parent applied for cancellation of removal, but has aged out by the time the application is adjudicated, does not qualify as a child under the statute. (Diaz-Arellano v. Att’y Gen., 10/29/24)
District Court Preliminarily Approves Settlement to Resolve Lawsuit Challenging ICE’s Categorical Denial of Parole to Asylum Seekers
The district court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between ICE and asylum seekers in a case challenging ICE’s alleged practice of categorically denying parole to asylum seekers in violation of DHS’s 2009 Parole Directive. (Heredia Mons, et al. v. McAleenan, et al., 10/24/24)
CA5 Holds That BIA Deprived Petitioner of Due Process by Violating Its Own Regulations
The court held that the BIA violated 8 CFR §1003.1(d)(3)(i) and (iv) by remanding the petitioner’s case sua sponte to the IJ for factual findings that the IJ had already made, rather than reviewing the IJ’s findings for clear error as required. (Francois v. Garland, 10/24/24)
CA6 Concludes That BIA Engaged in Reasoned Decision-Making in Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen
The court held that the BIA did not err in finding that the petitioner had failed to show that his removal to Mexico would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to one of his two U.S. citizen children, as required under INA §240A(b)(1)(D). (Galvez-Bravo v. Garland, 10/23/24)
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim Where M-18 Gang Made Specific and Menacing Death Threat Against 14-Year-Old Petitioner
The court held that the petitioners, a mother and her son, established that they suffered harm rising to the level of persecution, finding that members of the M-18 gang who murdered the son’s father were willing and capable of murdering the petitioners. (Corpeno-Romero v. Garland, 10/22/24)
AILA Amicus Brief Addresses Board's Definition of the "Child abuse, Child Neglect, and Child Abandonment" Ground for Removability
AILA's brief argued that the Board's definition of the "child abuse, child neglect, and child abandonment" ground for removability leads to unpredictable classifications of state offenses and harms families by separating generally caring and responsible parents from their children.
CA1 Finds IJ’s Adverse Credibility Determination as to Former Bodyguard in Guatemala Was Supported by Substantial Evidence
The court upheld the denial of asylum as to the Guatemalan petitioner, who formerly worked as a bodyguard for a congressman and feared returning to Guatemala because he believed that he would be the target of extortions and threats by gang members. (Garcia Oliva v. Garland, 10/21/24)
CA1 Upholds Asylum Denial to Ecuadorian Business Owner Subjected to Extortion Attempts and Death Threats
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that petitioner, the owner of a taxi company in Ecuador who had been targeted in extortion attempts by gang members and received death threats, failed to show past or future persecution. (Vargas-Salazar v. Garland, 10/17/24)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Special Rule Cancellation under NACARA to Salvadoran Petitioner
The court upheld the denial of petitioner’s special rule cancellation of removal application under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), finding he had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to himself or his spouse. (Figueroa v. Garland, 10/17/24)