Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Removal orders

by

police-car-9817014_1280-1An internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy memorandum provides new insights into how immigration enforcement works inside people’s homes.

According to the memorandum, as early as May 2025, ICE told officers and agents they could break into people’s homes without a judicial warrant, as long as they had an administrative warrant and the person inside had a final deportation order.

The detention of people inside their residences, based solely on administrative warrants, marks a concerning shift in policy.

For years, legal experts have said the rule is simple: don’t open the door unless agents show a judge-signed warrant. The Fourth Amendment is clear—your home is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. Typically, law enforcement can only enter with a judge’s approval, your permission, or in rare emergencies.

But this new policy says administrative warrants are enough. ICE officers are instructed to knock, identify themselves, and state their purpose. If someone refuses, according to the memo, agents can use “necessary and reasonable force” to enter.

The Department of Homeland Security says this is legal because “immigrants in the country illegally who are served administrative warrants or I-205s, (removal or deportation warrants), have had full due process and a final order of removal from an immigration judge.” But it removes a key constitutional safeguard and could lead to serious abuse.

Continue reading

by

family-1266188_1280

A chilling photo of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos in Minnesota has put a human face to rising concerns over aggressive immigration enforcement actions taken by ICE officials.

Since that photo made national headlines, we’ve learned that federal immigration agents detained the boy and his father outside their home in Columbia Heights, a Minneapolis suburb, as they returned from the boy’s preschool.

According to the superintendent of the school district, the boy was removed from the family vehicle in the driveway and was told by agents to knock on the family’s door to see if anyone else was inside. The family said ICE agents used the boy in an attempt to coax his mother out of the house — something she avoided doing out of fear of being detained while pregnant and caring for another teenage son.

DHS denies these claims, saying the boy was taken into custody only after his father told officers he wanted the child to remain with him. Officials said they attempted to place the boy with relatives before detaining him alongside his father. Following the incident, DHS issued a statement on X, stating, “Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates.”

Continue reading

by

us-1978465_1280Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a troubling decision that could strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans currently living in the United States under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

On Friday, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request to halt a lower court ruling that found the administration’s cancellation of TPS protections for Venezuelans unlawful. The unsigned order from the Court effectively allows the government to proceed, for now, with its plans to revoke temporary protections that had shielded Venezuelan nationals from deportation and granted them employment authorization.

TPS was created in 1990 as a humanitarian safeguard for individuals whose home countries are experiencing extraordinary crises such as armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other temporary but severe disruptions. Venezuela was designated for TPS in 2021 under President Biden, in response to the country’s severe economic collapse, widespread human rights abuses, and political instability.

Since then, approximately 300,000 Venezuelans have relied on that protection to live and work legally in the U.S., building lives, paying taxes, and raising families.

Trump Administration Moves to Strip Venezuela’s TPS Designation

But the political tides have shifted. When the Trump administration returned to office, it appointed Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security. Earlier this year, Noem moved to revoke Venezuela’s TPS designation, arguing that conditions in the country had improved and that continuing the program was no longer in the national interest. That decision sparked immediate legal challenges. A coalition of Venezuelan TPS recipients and advocacy groups sued, claiming the administration’s actions were arbitrary, rushed, and in violation of federal law.

Continue reading

by

prison-370112_1280Introducing sweeping changes, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has expanded its role by gaining law enforcement powers previously limited to agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Under a new final rule published today, USCIS will now recruit 1,811-classified special agents—fully empowered officers with authority—to investigate, arrest, and prosecute individuals violating U.S. immigration laws.

What’s Changed?

  • Law Enforcement Authority: The newly designated USCIS special agents are authorized to carry firearms, execute search and arrest warrants, make arrests, and use force—including in pursuit and potentially lethal situations—under standard federal law enforcement protocols.
  • Operational Autonomy: Previously, USCIS investigations—especially those involving criminal violations—were referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
  • Enforcement Agency: Now, USCIS itself can manage law enforcement investigations from start to finish, including investigating civil and criminal violations within the jurisdiction of USCIS and ordering expedited removal when warranted.

Continue reading

by

statue-9782657_1280On Tuesday, August 19th, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued updated policy guidance clarifying that immigration officers will assess a range of factors when determining whether to grant a favorable exercise of discretion in the green card process—signaling a tougher stance that may create additional hurdles for applicants seeking approval.

Even where a person has met all eligibility requirements for a green card, officers are required to conduct a discretionary analysis to determine whether an application should be approved. This exercise of discretion involves weighing positive factors against negative ones and considering the totality of the circumstances of each applicant’s case.

Among these factors, immigration officers will need to consider the “[legality of] past requests for parole,” “any involvement in anti-American or terrorist organizations,” and “evidence of antisemitic activity,” which are counted as negative factors weighing against a favorable exercise of discretion.

This guidance is also meant to provide clearer guidance to immigration officers on the “substantial negative discretionary weight” that should be given in cases where an individual has “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused the views of a terrorist organization or group.” This includes those supporting or promoting anti-American sentiments, antisemitic terrorism, terrorist groups with antisemitic agendas, or antisemitic beliefs.

Continue reading

by

prison-370112_1280A 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.

Continue reading

by

lawyer-3819044_1280The 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.”

Continue reading

by

investigation-9604083_1280On 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

  • Swift policy action: Under Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s directive, federal partners are now reviewing immigration files more aggressively, identifying visa overstays, and initiating enforcement actions
Continue reading

by

airport-8081875_1280On 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:

  • Free Government-Funded Flights:Undocumented immigrants are offered complimentary flights to any country willing to accept them, excluding the United States.This service is accessible through the government’s new “CBP Home” mobile application and at participating airport
  • $1,000 Exit Bonus: Individuals who voluntarily and permanently depart the U.S. under this program are allegedly eligible to receive a $1,000 “exit bonus” upon successful relocation.
  • Concierge Travel Assistance: A government-provided concierge service is available at airports to assist individuals, even those lacking valid travel documents from their home countries, in booking flights and navigating the voluntary departure process.

Continue reading

by

pieter-van-de-sande-r6BdUpN_iSk-unsplash-scaledPresident 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.

Continue reading