San Diego’s immigration community has been rattled by new reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is arresting individuals with no criminal history during routine green card interviews at USCIS offices—a practice that is historically unprecedented and deeply alarming.
What’s Happening
Starting in early November, immigration attorneys began reporting that ICE agents had been detaining green card applicants at routine interviews conducted at USCIS field offices.
This week, the Justice Department announced that it has hired 36 new immigration judges — 11 permanent and 25 temporary — for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a key agency that handles immigration court proceedings in deportation cases.
What’s happening?
The hiring comes after several months of layoffs among immigration judges occurring earlier this year. In the past 10 months, EOIR fired more than 125 judges, causing delays in immigration court proceedings across the country.
The courts in Massachusetts and Illinois were among the most affected by these departures. The good news is these newly hired judges will begin serving across 16 states nationwide.
Who are the new judges?
A new lawsuit filed by a man detained in San Diego, California, is challenging the controversial practice of courthouse arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) taking place in recent months. The case could offer critical insight into the government’s approach in making these arrests. (A.M. v. Larose (3:25-cv-01412))
The man identified in court filings as A.M. is seeking asylum in the United States after being subjected to torture in his home country from his human rights advocacy. On June 3, he arrived for what he believed would be a routine immigration court hearing but was shocked to find that the judge had dismissed his case and ICE agents were waiting outside, ready to arrest him and take him to Otay Mesa’s Detention Facility to eventually be deported.
Unfortunately, A.M.’s case is not unique. In recent months, the Trump administration has enforced a controversial policy in immigration courts to expedite deportations by instructing judges to swiftly dismiss cases, subjecting individuals to expedited removal without giving them a meaningful opportunity to contest the government’s claims or consult attorneys.
This approach, detailed in a May 30 directive from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, encourages judges to grant oral motions to dismiss without the standard 10-day response period, effectively eliminating opportunities for individuals to contest their cases. Once dismissed, individuals are immediately eligible for expedited removal, making it possible for ICE officers to arrest them.
The growing presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials at immigration courthouses nationwide has prompted several states to enact laws preventing ICE from arresting or detaining individuals attending their immigration hearings.
One such law passed by the state of New York is the “Protect Our Courts Act,” which shields individuals from being arrested by federal immigration authorities like ICE while traveling to, attending, or leaving court proceedings. This law is designed to guarantee that people can access the justice system without fearing immigration-related repercussions. It forbids arrests in these situations unless a judicial warrant or court order is shown to court personnel.
On June 12th the Justice Department sued the state of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act under the supremacy clause. The government argues that it unlawfully obstructs federal immigration enforcement operations.
The Trump administration is seeking to invalidate these laws to facilitate detention and removal. According to the government, arrests at courthouses helps prevent individuals from evading authorities and decreases safety risks because of the security offered by courthouses.
In response to the lawsuit, the New York Civil Liberties Union issued a statement defending the state law adding, “This latest attempt by the Trump administration to meddle in our laws would push immigrant communities further into the shadows, throw due process out the window, and weaken trust in our justice system — making everyone less safe. It sends a dangerous message: that ICE can and should operate wherever it wants, regardless of the human cost.”
On June 4, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the agency will expand its efforts to crackdown on visa overstays, due to a recent terrorist attack in Boulder Colorado. The attack was perpetrated by an Egyptian national who had been in the United States unlawfully since overstaying his visa in 2022.
What this Means
Harvard Travel Ban Blocked by Federal Judge
Earlier this month President Trump had signed an Executive Order suspending the entry of all nonimmigrants and exchange visitors attending Harvard University, for a period of 6 months starting June 4th (the effective date of the proclamation).
Those affected by the executive order were F, J, and M visa holders outside of the United States as of the date of the proclamation. The suspension did not apply to nonimmigrants entering the United States to attend other universities.
Shortly after the executive order was issued, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting its enforcement until the court can rule on the merits of the case.
Following the court’s actions, the State Department ordered embassies and consulates around the world to resume visa processing for Harvard University students and exchange visitors.
As a result, Harvard students can breathe easier. While the preliminary injunction remains in effect, consulates are barred from denying visas to Harvard students and exchange visitors, and visa holders attending Harvard cannot be refused entry to the United States.
For more information, please click here.
Visa Lawyer Blog