EOIR

EOIR Clarifies Rules on Generative AI Use in Immigration Courts

by
BIA Appeals

EOIR Leaves AI Use to Court and Adjudicator Discretion

Child Status Protection Act:

On Friday, August 8, 2025, USCIS issued a policy alert announcing it would return to exclusively using the Visa Bulletin’s Final Action Dates chart to determine an applicant’s Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) age for all adjustment of status applications filed on or after August 15, 2025.

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), neither prohibits generative AI use in its proceedings nor requires disclosure of its use. Individual adjudicators or courts may adopt standing orders regarding AI. Practitioners who submit hallucinated or erroneous AI-generated content in filings before EOIR likely violate professional conduct obligations

In Matter of Garcia Martinez, To get a fee waiver, a noncitizen must explain how they can afford legal fees but not a filing fee.
To get a fee waiver, a noncitizen must explain how they can afford legal fees but not a filing fee.
The BIA concluded that a fee waiver request containing zeros in all income blocks is presumptively invalid, denied the request, and deemed the motion to reconsider improperly filed.

Child Status Protection Act

ICE to Implement Automatic Case Notifications to Legal Reps by May 1, 2025

by

Automatic Notifications from ICE Aim to Streamline Attorney Case Management

Effective May 1, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is implementing a new policy aimed at improving communication with legal representatives. This change involves an automated notification system.

This new process is designed to address a long-standing challenge for immigration attorneys. They often face significant obstacles in tracking their clients as they are moved between detention centers. Such transfers can disrupt legal representation and cause delays in cases. Furthermore, these transfers create immense stress for both the detainees and their legal teams. By providing these automatic alerts, ICE is attempting to streamline communication. They aim to reduce some of the uncertainty associated with the detention system.

The notifications will be delivered through the ERO File system, a platform used by legal representatives for electronic filings and scheduling. Each alert will include the location of the new facility, providing a clear and immediate update. This is a crucial detail, as a client’s location can directly impact court jurisdiction. Additionally, it affects the ability of an attorney to provide in-person counsel.

However, the policy has its limitations. The automated alerts will only be triggered by transfers between ICE-contracted facilities that hold individuals for more than 72 hours. This means that transfers to short-term holding or processing centers, as well as final removals, will not generate a notification. This is an important distinction for legal professionals to note. They will still need to use other methods to track clients in these specific situations. The policy is a step towards greater transparency, but it does not solve all of the communication challenges within the immigration detention system. It primarily serves as a tool to aid in continuity of legal representation for a subset of detained individuals.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

SAVE Database Revamped: New Integrations for Criminal Records and Immigration Timelines

by

Mass Status Checks Streamlined in SAVE System Upgrade

The recent announcement by Secretary of Homeland Security Noem, in collaboration with USCIS and the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), represents a significant and controversial expansion of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. This overhaul is not a minor update. Instead, it’s a fundamental change to how the federal government collects, shares, and uses information related to non-citizens. The integration of criminal records, immigration timelines, and addresses, coupled with the ability to conduct mass status checks, transforms a previously focused tool for benefits verification. Now it is becoming a comprehensive data-sharing platform.

DOGE’s involvement is particularly noteworthy and has been a source of growing concern. A whistleblower complaint from the Social Security Administration, for example, alleged that DOGE staffers created a “live replica” of the entire country’s social security data. This included highly personal information such as names, birth dates, and addresses, on a vulnerable, unsecured cloud server. This incident highlights the profound risks associated with centralizing vast troves of personal information. The risk is under a single, new agency with a mandate to “streamline” processes. This often bypasses traditional security and oversight.

It is an extension of DOGE’s controversial data-gathering tactics. This raises serious questions about the security and privacy of millions of people. Legal experts fear this could lead to the misuse of data for purposes beyond its original intent, such as for targeted immigration enforcement or surveillance. This effectively creates a de facto national registry of non-citizens. The lack of transparency and public notice surrounding these changes has only deepened these concerns. Critics argue it circumvents public debate and necessary checks and balances. Thus, it fails to protect individual rights. The comparison to the supposed unreliability of a power grid in the Philippines, while a separate matter, brings to light a critical point about the perception of efficiency. The government may present these changes as a way to improve functionality. Therefore, the public and those directly affected must remain vigilant. They need to be aware about the potential for systemic failures and the erosion of privacy and due process.

Department of Government Efficiency (doge)

EOIR Issues Interim Final Rule to Reduce BIA Board Size

by
BIA Appeals

Board of Immigration Appeals Restructured Under New EOIR Rule

The landscape of U.S. immigration policy and adjudication is undergoing significant and rapid changes. These changes are driven by executive action, administrative rulemaking, and judicial intervention. These developments affect everything from the top-level appellate structure, including the actions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. They also impact the processing of individual cases, creating a complex and often contradictory environment for applicants and legal practitioners.

Changes to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

In a major administrative shift, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has issued an interim final rule (IFR). This rule immediately reduces the size of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) from 28 to 15 members. This move follows shortly after the BIA was expanded. It is justified by the Department of Justice as a way to “increase consistency” and “facilitate an efficient en banc process.” However, critics, including organizations like the National Immigration Project, argue against it. They believe this reduction in capacity is arbitrary and will not help address the backlog of cases. Instead, it may lead to more rubber-stamping decisions without proper legal reasoning. This action is seen by some as a politically motivated attempt to remove immigration judges appointed under a previous administration.

Defining “Particular Social Group” in Asylum Law

In a separate development, the BIA’s decision in Matter of O–A–R–G–, et al., has introduced a critical clarification on asylum claims based on a “former” status. The decision specifies that for asylum on the basis of being a member of a “particular social group” (PSG), applicants must demonstrate motivation by their current status as a former group member. It can’t be retribution for past actions taken while in that group. The case involved a former Colombian police officer. The BIA concluded that the harm he feared was based on past conduct as a police officer, not current status as a former officer. This crucial distinction impacts many claims. Particularly, those by former military, law enforcement, or government employees seeking protection. It places a higher burden on applicants to show a clear nexus between their immutable “former” status and the persecution they fear.

Green Card Processing and Judicial Oversight

On the processing front, recent media reports have indicated a concerning halt in the processing of green card applications for asylees and refugees by USCIS. The government has cited the need for “additional screening and vetting.” This move has created significant uncertainty and delay for an already vulnerable population. This administrative pause has put thousands of applications in limbo, creating significant hardship for those already granted protection in the United States.

This administrative action is in stark contrast to a recent federal court order in Seattle. This order pushed back against a broader government policy to suspend refugee processing. A federal judge has explicitly told the Trump Administration it must follow through on legal obligations to admit approved refugees. To ensure compliance, the court has mandated the government provide a detailed plan with deadlines and updates. This judicial oversight checks executive power and highlights the judiciary’s role alongside the Board of Immigration Appeals. It ensures the government’s adherence to its laws and international commitments.

Board of Immigration Appeals

DHS notice stating that DHS is terminating the categorical parole programs for inadmissible noncitizens

by
Californiya Immigration

These affect everything from legal status to the very methods of enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security’s recent decisions also play into this uncertainty. These changes, driven by administrative actions and court rulings, create a complex and uncertain environment for noncitizens, legal professionals, and humanitarian organizations.

The Termination of Humanitarian Parole Programs

In a major policy reversal, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced the termination of the categorical parole programs for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). The move immediately cancels all pending applications for parole. Additionally, it will revoke the employment authorization for all current parolees. This rendering leaves hundreds of thousands of individuals without legal work status.

Immigration Court Procedural Changes

In the realm of immigration court procedures, a new policy memorandum (PM) from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has rescinded a prior directive. It reinstated an older policy regarding the use of “status dockets.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The new PM 25-27, issued by EOIR Acting Director Sirce Owen, reinstates PM 19-13.

The previous administration’s DM 23-01 had expanded the use of status dockets, allowing for continuances in a wider range of circumstances. The new policy aims to increase the pace of adjudications and reduce the number of cases on hold by limiting the use of status dockets.

However, critics fear it may lead to more denials based on lack of documentation. They worry there may be insufficient time for applicants to secure the necessary paperwork from other government agencies. This shift signals a return to a more expedited approach to case management. It could potentially be at the expense of comprehensive legal review by agencies including the Department of Homeland Security.

Court Rulings on Removability

The courts are also weighing in on complex immigration law matters. In the case of Salinas v. Bondi, the court held that a North Dakota conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver qualified as a controlled substance offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This ruling rendered the petitioner removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal, a form of relief from deportation. The decision highlights the complex and often harsh reality of how state-level criminal convictions can have severe and long-lasting consequences for a person’s immigration status. This is true even if the person is a lawful permanent resident.

Reduced Assistance for Refugees and New Enforcement Policies

The humanitarian front is also seeing changes. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has shortened the eligibility period for Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) from 12 months to just four months. This decision, influenced by the Department of Homeland Security’s new guidelines, could place additional strain on non-profit organizations and communities. In a separate development, ICE Acting Director Caleb Vitello issued a new policy directive (ICE Directive 19010.3). The directive aims to establish a policy for the use of Body Worn Cameras (BWCs) by ICE law enforcement officers.

DHS

Procedural Steps in an Immigration Court Case

by
California Immigration

The Hill reports that U.S. immigration courts are moving toward more child-appropriate court procedures, but funding could determine whether those procedures will effectively protect minors in immigration proceedings. A group of 18 senators, led by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) are calling on appropriators to dive into the weeds on EOIR …

Read more

DOJ Provides Guidance to Immigration Judges on Internet-Based Video Hearings

by
California Immigration

Internet-Based Video Hearings. DOJ issued guidance on internet-based hearings, setting guidelines to apply to such hearings across the migrant court system going forward. EOIR expects that hearings using Webex or similar program will remain important to operations in the future. Traditionally, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has used a closed video teleconferencing system when …

Read more

EOIR announces appointment of 24 new immigration judges

by
California Immigration

EOIR announced the appointment of 24 new immigration judges. This includes four Assistant Chief Immigration Judges and two Unit Chief Immigration Judges. The memo provides a biography for each judge.They will join the newest BIA member, Appellate Immigration Judge Andrea Saenz. The qualifications for a career as an immigration judge include a law degree, active membership in the …

Read more

EOIR to Resume Hearings in Non-Detained Cases in Certain Immigration Courts

by

EOIR will resume non-detained individual and master calendar hearings in limited numbers at certain courts on July 6, 2021. Those who don’t receive a notice of reset hearing by June 22 should expect scheduled hearings to proceed in these courts. The option to file by email at these courts will end on September 4, 2021. In a separate …

Read more

Contact Form