Original Date Announced

An Acting Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge (RDCIJ) sent an email to Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJs) on adjudications "to ensure the expeditious adjudication of cases," informing them that "Oral Decisions must be completed within the same hearing slot on the day testimony and arguments are concluded," and that "DHS Motions to Dismiss may be made orally and decided from the bench. No additional documentation or briefing is required."

The memorandum also address DHS enforcement "at or near EOIR facilities." More details and subsequent updates on enforcement at or near EOIR facilities is available here.

Trump 2.0 [ID #2021]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.01 Complaint - African Communities Together v. Lyons

African Communities Together and The Door, two organizations that work for and with noncitizens in removal proceedings, filed a lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration’s policies of authorizing arrests at immigration courthouses and dismissing noncitizens’ removal proceedings without meaningful process. The complaint alleges that the policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. African Communities Together v. Lyons, No. 1:25-cv-6366 (S.D.N.Y.).

Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.12 Opinion - African Communities Together v. Lyons

Judge P. Kevin Castel granted a stay of the EOIR policy advising Immigration Judges that oral motions filed by ICE Trial Attorneys requesting that removal proceedings be dismissed may be granted even without giving noncitizen respondents a chance to submit a response. The Court found the May 30, 2025, email to be final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was "[a] guidance document that leads to legal consequences."

The Court found that the EOIR Dismissal Policy likely violated the APA due to conflicts between the policy, which indicates to Immigration Judges that a significant change in caseload supports dismissal of individual cases, and regulations permitting case dismissal when the “[c]ircumstances of the case have changed . . . to such an extent that continuation is no longer in the best interest of the government.” 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a)(7). The order stays the Dismissal Policy "in the geographic areas served by [the plaintiff organization], i.e. Manhattan and the Bronx." African Communities Together v. Lyons, No. 1:25-cv-6366 (S.D.N.Y.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.23 EOIR PM 25-51 - Withdrawal of May 30, 2025 Email

EOIR Acting Deputy Director Roman Chaban issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 25-51, withdrawing the email sent by an RDCIJ on May 30, 2025. Chaban asserts that "[t]he May 30 Email was not an EOIR policy, nor could it have been because it was not contained in the EOIR Policy Manual," and it "could not direct or bind any Immigration Judge to make a specific decision in a case in a particular way." While conceding that the May 30 email's "attempt to paraphrase relevant law was poorly drafted," Chaban states that "its core idea that Immigration Judges have authority to grant oral motions to dismiss or terminate in court is longstanding . . . the relevant regulatory language is clear that Immigration Judges may permit oral motions in court to dismiss or terminate." The PM asserts that "no competent Immigration Judge would have understood the May 30 Email to represent either a formal policy of the agency or a directive with binding effect to decide a case or issue a particular way."

Based on these assertions, Chaban characterizes the complaint in African Communities Together v. Lyons as premised on the assumption that IJs "were too incompetent (or too corrupt) to realize that the May 30 Email (1) was not a policy, (2) did not, and could not, supersede any applicable statutes or regulations, and (3) did not, and could not, direct them on how to handle or rule on a case." While asserting that no IJ should have relied on the May 30 Email to decide motions, "to eliminate any remaining uncertainty, this PM now formally withdraws the May 30 Email. All Immigration Judges should continue to not rely on it in adjudicating cases."

While stating that it is "beyond the scope of this PM," the PM also raises in a footnote the question of whether IJs "who previously granted oral motions to terminate or dismiss as a matter of routine but now refuse to do so, not based on the law but because they have personal or policy disagreements with what they perceive as the intent behind the motions, are violating ethics and professional responsibility rules" under PM 25-33.

In another footnote, the PM discusses whether the Immigration Court Practice Manual is binding on parties, observing that its legal authority to bind parties is "decidedly unclear."