On January 31, 2025, it was reported on social media that the previous day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued new policy guidance to its employees entitled Interim Guidance on Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions Involving Current or Potential Beneficiaries of Victim-Based Immigration Benefits (“Interim Guidance”). ICE recently published the text of the Interim Guidance, which rescinds certain prior ICE directives on enforcement against immigrant survivors of crime, trafficking, or abuse, and replaces them with new guidance.

This memorandum addresses Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement actions in or near areas that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously determined require special protection. It is effective immediately. This memorandum supersedes and rescinds Alejandro Mayorkas's October 27, 2021 memorandum entitled, Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas.

In December 2023, in connection with our annual Removal Conference, ASISTA began mapping out DHS memoranda and guidance regarding prosecutorial discretion as it relates to applications filed by immigrant survivors, so as to better understand the varied instructions to DHS components as to whether and when to request adjudication of pending USCIS petitions. ASISTA tracked memoranda and guidance spanning the last three administrations (Obama, Trump I, and Biden) to see which memos were formally superseded and which were still in effect from past administrations. We have updated the chart with additional information that was provided at our conference, and to reflect the Trump administration from 2016-2020 as “Trump I.” We share it now as an aid for practitioners to make the best use of current guidance and plan for changes anticipated in the next administration.

Click here to access ASISTA Removal Conference recordings and here to access the ASISTA Chart.

This Practice Alert reviews the EOIR regulations effective July 29, 2024, and the potential impact of the regulations on immigrant survivors and their derivative beneficiaries who are seeking administrative closure or the termination of removal proceedings. As the regulations are implemented and more information becomes available, ASISTA will update this guidance.

In 2006, the Attorney General instructed the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, in consultation with the Immigration Judges, to issue a practice manual for the parties who appear before the Immigration Courts. This directive arose out of the public's desire for greater uniformity in Immigration Court procedures and a call for the Immigration Courts to implement their "best practices" nationwide.

This Practice Manual has been assembled as a public service to parties before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

This manual is strictly informational in nature. This manual is not intended, in any way, to substitute for a careful study of the pertinent laws and regulations. Readers are advised to review Chapter 1.1 before consulting any information contained herein.

The Practice Manual is updated periodically. To assist readers, tables showing the update history of the Practice Manual are available in the section titled Table of Changes.

Link to USCIS webpage which includes the Adjudicator's Field Manual.

This ICE memo provides interim guidance concerning the expanded confidentiality protections of the VAWA 2005 and the legislation's requirements that ICE issue a certificate of compliance in certain circumstances.

This policy memorandum (PM) applies to and will be used to guide referrals and the issuance of NTAs by all USCIS employees, unless otherwise specifically provided in this PM or other USCIS policy or guidance documents.
This PM supersedes Policy Memorandum 602-0050, Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens, dated November 7, 2011.

Click here to access the NTA Practice Update, June 2019:
Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Denied Humanitarian-based Immigration Cases.

These annotated notes have been compiled by ASISTA, AILA and ILRC, commenting on the information shared by USCIS during the November 15, 2018 national stakeholder teleconference. We added practice pointers and clarification to USCIS responses.

This is a memo from February 4, 2011.

Memo from August 20, 2010

This memo provides field guidance to ensure compliance with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) regarding aliens with pending U visa petitions who are either (1) subject to a final administrative order of deportation or removal and request a stay of removal or (2) in removal proceedings.

This memo explains the options of USCIS to set a 12-week response time or a shorter (ex. 30 day response time) for Request for Further Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny.

This memo lists out instances in which CBP, CIS, and ICE should not issue Notices to Appear, as well as other options after filing the Notices to Appear.

If an adjustment of status was not available to the respondent at the former hearing, the alien is statutorily eligible for adjustment of status, and the respondent merits a favorable exercise of discretion.

This memo offers information on EOIR regulations for motions to reopen.

Many thanks to Rekha Sharma-Crawford for pursuing this case to AAO, vindicating our long-posited argument that a 212(a)(9)(C) waiver eliminates the underlying predicate for 241(a)(5).

The Court unanimously held that a statutory provision stripping courts of jurisdiction to review immigration decisions that Congress has declared "to be in the discretion of the Attorney General".

In February of 212, The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overruled Matter of Gutierrez 21 I&N Dec. 479 (BIA 1996) a person requesting administrative closure may succeed without agreement from the government attorney. In Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), the Board identified factors for the adjudicator to determine whether to close a case.

On March 18, 2021, Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the proceedings for 90 days subject to specific interim conditions. These conditions prohibit ICE from (1) denying a request for stay for U visa petitioners; (2) removing U visa petitioners; or (3) opposing a motion to continue for U visa petitioners during the 90 day period, subject to certain exceptions. This update informs practitioners of the terms of the agreement and potential implications for representing U visa clients.

Yesterday, ASISTA, along with our partners, submitted an amicus brief challenging EOIR's erosion of docketing tools like continuances and administrative closures. This errosion results in limiting access to critical immigration relief for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and other serious crimes. 

ASISTA was joined in this brief by American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence (API-GBV), National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), Kentucky Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Ohio Domestic Violence Network, and Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence. We are grateful to our allies for helping protect and advance the rights of survivors.

Special thanks to Grace Huang, Chuck Roth, Elissa Steglich, Russell Abrutyn, Sabrina Damast and Patrick Taurel for their prompt and sage feedback. Thank you are also to Lily Axelrod of Siskind Susser PC for stepping in to serve as co-counsel for amici organizations. 

To download the brief in Word version, please click here

ASISTA has developed this Practice Advisory: The Impact of Matter of L-N-Y-, 27 I&N 755 (BIA 2020), which provides a detailed overview of provisions in this precedential decision, discusses its intersection with other BIA decisions on continuances, and provides best practices for requesting continuances for U visa applicants in removal proceedings. We've also summarized our key practice pointers in this Practice FAQ. Click here to download the practice advisory in Word version and here for the FAQ in Word version. 

Copyright @2020 by ASISTA Immigration Assistance. All rights reserved. This product or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used without express written permission from ASISTA Immigration Assistance.

Request for Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion to Dismiss Proceedings Based on Prima Facie Eligibility for U Nonimmigrant Status or in the Alternative a Joint Motion to Administratively Close Proceedings, or continue Master Calendar Proceedings.

Request to Exercise Prosecutorial Discretion and Join a Motion to Administratively Close Proceedings Based on a Pending U Nonimmigrant Visa Petition

Request for Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion to Dismiss Proceedings

ASISTA has developed this Practice Advisory: The Impact of Matter of Mayen, 27 I&N 755 (BIA 2020), which provides a detailed overview of provisions in this precedential decision, discusses its intersection with other BIA decisions on continuances, and provides best practices for requesting continuances for U visa applicants in removal proceedings. We've also summarized our key practice pointers in this Practice FAQ. Click here to download the practice advisory in Word version and here for the FAQ in Word version. 

Copyright @2020 by ASISTA Immigration Assistance. All rights reserved. This product or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used without express written permission from ASISTA Immigration Assistance.

ASISTA and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) recently published a new in-depth practice advisory that contains updates in policy and survivor-based advocacy strategies for U visa applicants at different stages of removal proceedings. This includes strategies for helping U visa applicants with final or prior orders of removal, those currently in removal proceedings, and options for survivors if they receive unfavorable decisions in immigration court. This advisory will be updated should new or additional policy developments impact its content.

This practice advisory offers a detailed overview of filing petitions, from the length of grace periods to litigation in the Court of Appeals.

These annotated notes have been compiled by ASISTA, AILA and ILRC, commenting on the information shared by USCIS during the November 15, 2018 national stakeholder teleconference. We added practice pointers and clarification to USCIS responses.

This practice advisory from the AILF's Legal Action Center offers an overview when voluntary departure is given and the costs and benefits of such an order.

This practice advisory by Mary Kenney, is one of the three which discuss interim regulations that give USCIS jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of an "arriving alines" parolee who is in removal proceedings.

This analysis from The Supreme Court's decision in Dada v. Mukasey offers insight into the motion to reopen provisions.

This practice advisory adopted by Mary Kenney, is the third in a series about interim regulations, that give USCIS jurisdiction over the adjustment applications of an "arriving alines" parolee who is in removal proceeding. It discussed how reinstatement of removal under 241(a)(5) applies to people generally, with some information at the end on VAWA. Should read with more recent CIS memos on I-212.s.

Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) aff'd 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988) sets the requirements for filing a motion to reopen a case based on ineffective assistance of counsel. This practice advisory lays out the Lozada requirements and restrictions.

The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), provides relief to children who "age-out" (turn 21) as a result of delays by USCIS in processing visa petitions and asylum and refugee applications. This practice advisory offers information age calculations and formulas for determining who constitutes a child and at what age.

Article written by Gail Pendleton.

This article strives to answer what determines false testimony.

A new voluntary departure rule, which wen into effect in January 2009, addressed various aspect of voluntary departure, which this Q&A attempts to answer and clarify.