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.
In a stunning turn of events, on Tuesday a federal judge in New York blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) benefits for Haitians ahead of schedule, ruling that DHS violated the law in attempting to strip deportations and work permits from over half a million Haitians.
The ruling comes in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s abrupt announcement that it would be terminating Haiti’s TPS designation effective September 2, 2025.
In a decision issued Tuesday, District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan found that accelerating the program’s expiration by at least five months was unlawful and that the government failed to follow required procedures mandated by Congress, such as conducting a review of current conditions in Haiti before ending its TPS designation—a requirement that was not followed in this case.
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
On Friday May 9, 2025, President Trump signed executive order “Establishing Project Homecoming,”a new White House initiative aimed at encouraging the voluntary departure of undocumented immigrants from the United States.
This new policy offers financial incentives and logistical support to those who facilitate self-deportation, with the stated goal of reducing the fiscal and social burdens associated with deportation to prioritize funding for Americans in need.
Key Provisions of Project Homecoming:
President Trump’s first 100 days in office have been marred by controversial actions targeting both legal and illegal immigration.
In its latest move, the Trump administration is going even further by targeting “sanctuary” cities which are state and local jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration law enforcement officials. “Sanctuary” cities have been known to enact policies that prohibit the detention of individuals solely based on their immigration status and restrict the sharing of information about immigrants with federal authorities.
To force them into compliance, the Trump administration has begun filing lawsuits against sanctuary cities seeking to penalize them for their disobedience.
The first of these lawsuits targets Colorado and Denver for impeding federal immigration authorities from carrying out deportations. Denver is one of many states with state laws that prevent state and local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. For instance, a Denver state law prevents the use of the city’s resources to assist with immigration enforcement, while a separate executive order establishes Denver as a “sanctuary city,” welcoming undocumented immigrants.
If Trump has it his way, the lawsuit would undo Colorado’s sanctuary state laws by declaring them unconstitutional and prohibiting their enforcement.
Interestingly, in responding to the lawsuit, the governor of Colorado Jared Polis denied Colorado’s status as a sanctuary state and said that Colorado regularly cooperates with federal law enforcement authorities.
On April 28th, President Donald Trump signed two new executive orders that significantly impact U.S. immigration policy and enforcement.
These presidential actions are a continued effort to prioritize national security by enhancing law enforcement capabilities and imposes penalties on “sanctuary” cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The first executive order entitled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” empowers state and local law enforcement agencies to take stronger action against crime by expanding their authority and increasing investment in prison infrastructure. It also holds state and local officials accountable for obstructing criminal law enforcement or violating civil rights.
Specifically, it directs the Attorney General to prosecute officials who
willfully and unlawfully direct the obstruction of criminal law, including by directly and unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties necessary for public safety and law enforcement; or
unlawfully engage in discrimination or civil-rights violations under the guise of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives that restrict law enforcement activity or endanger citizens.
In the latest clash between the Trump administration and the judiciary—Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan has been arrested by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for accusations of helping a man evade immigration authorities.
This all went down on Friday April 25th after allegations that the judge directed an undocumented immigrant and his lawyer to exit her courtroom through a side door after learning that federal immigration agents were waiting in the hallway to arrest him.
Upon being spotted by agents outside the courthouse, the man was pursued on foot and was ultimately taken into custody.
These actions have prompted a showdown over allegations of obstruction of justice amid Trump’s immigration crackdowns. The U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi has accused the judge of interfering with the government’s enforcement priorities claiming the arrest sends a “strong message” to judges that they will be prosecuted if they “escort a criminal defendant out a back door.”
The circumstances surrounding the judge’s arrest remain unclear. What is known is that six federal officers descended upon the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national attending a court hearing to respond to battery charges in connection with a criminal complaint filed by his roommate.
Visa Lawyer Blog