Skip to main content
NIJC has a new Chicago address at 111 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60604 and a new email domain at @immigrantjustice.org.

Media Inquiries

Contact NIJC Communications Director Tara Tidwell Cullen at (312) 833-2967 or by email.

Washington, D.C. — Five immigrant justice groups filed suit against the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — which operates the nation’s immigration courts — for issuing an unlawful rule that severely restricts immigrants’ access to justice. The rule deprives immigrants of access to a full and fair hearing, limits their right to present evidence and to select legal counsel of their choosing, and eliminates essential means of securing immigration relief. EOIR’s sweeping rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, among other things.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS), Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP), HIAS (founded as Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), and the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) brought the suit. NIJC and Democracy Forward represent the plaintiff group.

“In its final weeks, the Trump administration has unlawfully moved to deny immigrants their right to a fair hearing in court,” said Democracy Forward Counsel and Legal Analyst Ben Seel. “Under the guise of ‘efficiency,’ the outgoing administration has made sweeping changes to immigration court procedures that will deny immigrants due process, cause wrongful deportations, and will actually result in less efficient proceedings.”

"With just days left before the end of an historically anti-immigrant presidency, the Trump administration once again jammed through regulations that would change the rules in immigration court to further take away immigrants’ rights and their ability to pursue defenses that by law they are eligible for,” said Andrea Sáenz, Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project at Brooklyn Defender Services. “Not only has the administration failed to follow the proper procedure to change the standards, but worse, this regulation will result in more people being unjustly deported and separated from their families.”

“The rule is yet another attempt by the Trump administration to rush devastating changes to EOIR, at the expense of noncitizens’ due process rights and access to the immigration courts,” said NIJC Senior Litigation Attorney Mary Harper. “As surely intended, the rule will drastically undermine Plaintiffs’ ability to represent and serve noncitizens, resulting in the removal of individuals who may otherwise be eligible for protection.”

"This Rule strips important due process rights from noncitizens and will particularly harm the detained pro se litigants that the Florence Project serves,” said FIRRP Legal Director Laura St. John. “For many, a fair day in court can mean the difference between living in safety in the U.S. or being returned to harm or even death. These Rules, like so many others, prize efficiency over fairness, and they are actually counterproductive because undermining the fundamental fairness of the appellate process in the name of efficiency will ultimately increase delays and litigation."

“HIAS joined this court challenge because the Trump administration failed to respect the rulemaking process as it stripped away due process for asylum seekers,” said Mark Hetfield, president and CEO of HIAS, the international Jewish humanitarian organization that provides vital services to refugees and asylum seekers. “Rushed through by the Trump administration on its way out of power, the challenged regulation would hollow out the right of asylum seekers to appeal denials of their claims, putting the lives of HIAS clients at risk.”

EOIR’s unlawful rule, published on December 16, upends existing procedures within EOIR’s immigration court system, especially those governing EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

The rule’s sweeping changes strip immigrants of due process and other statutory protections and create possibly insurmountable barriers to seeking relief that Congress designed, like asylum, protection for victims of trafficking or crime, and special juvenile status for unaccompanied children. The rule imposes excessive hardships on the advocates who serve immigrants in court. It does so in the following ways:

  • Slashes the time allowed to file briefs, making it much harder for immigrants to find counsel to represent them in appeals before the BIA and for their counsel to represent them in proceedings;
  • Effectively prohibits the BIA from considering evidence that immigrants are newly eligible for protection, such as asylum, based on a change in fact or law;
  • Upends procedures for determining voluntary departure, a form of relief that avoids the devastating consequences of a removal order, such as prolonged family separation;
  • Allows the BIA to make findings of fact despite its status as an appellate body — and without an adequate opportunity for parties to challenge those facts;
  • Eliminates immigration judges’ and the BIA’s authority to administratively close proceedings or reopen them under their “sua sponte” authority  to correct manifest injustices, which will prevent individuals from obtaining relief and deprive judges of essential case management tools;
  • Politicizes decision-making in immigration proceedings by allowing EOIR’s director — an unconfirmed non-judicial official — to intervene in cases with new adjudicatory powers while imposing timeframes that prioritize speed over fairness.

In issuing the rule, EOIR contradicted protections enshrined in the law, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision, and failed to provide a sufficient notice and comment period in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The rule also violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and was unlawfully issued by the EOIR director, who lacks the necessary authority to issue these drastic changes. The plaintiffs have asked the court to vacate the rule in its entirety and prohibit it from taking effect.

The plaintiffs’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed on January 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

###

Democracy Forward is a nonprofit legal organization that scrutinizes Executive Branch activity across policy areas, represents clients in litigation to challenge unlawful actions, and educates the public when the White House or federal agencies break the law.

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., or CLINIC, advocates for humane and just immigration policy. Its network of nonprofit immigration programs — more than 370 affiliates in 49 states and the District of Columbia — is the largest in the nation. CLINIC provides substantive legal and program management training and resources, as well as advocacy support at state, local and national levels.

Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS) is a public defender organization serving tens of thousands of Brooklyn residents each year since 1996. Our mission is to provide high-quality and client-centered criminal, family, immigration, and civil legal representation, as well as social work support and advocacy for people who cannot afford an attorney.

The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project is the largest organization in Arizona providing free legal and social services to detained adults and children facing removal proceedings, through direct service, partnerships within the community, and advocacy and outreach efforts.

Founded in 1881, HIAS is a Jewish humanitarian organization that provides vital services to refugees and asylum seekers in 16 countries. We advocate for the rights of all forcibly displaced people to rebuild their lives. Together, we can create a world in which refugees find welcome, safety, and freedom.

The National Immigrant Justice Center is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to ensuring human rights protections and access to justice for all immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers through a unique combination of direct services, policy reform, impact litigation, and public education.