Case Rounds: Notes from 6/3/25
Introduction
Weekly Legal & Advocacy Collaboration Session
These weekly meetings are designed to support cross-organizational collaboration, build shared legal knowledge, and strengthen collective advocacy efforts.
Format and Participation Guidelines:
Participation is open to legal and advocacy professionals.
Speaking order is based on arrival time unless you indicate a time constraint and need to speak early.
Everyone shares once before anyone shares twice. Please begin by offering a question, update, or insight, and engage with responses from others.
Before speaking, please introduce yourself and the organization or role you represent.
No client-specific discussion. We do not provide individual legal advice or discuss identifiable case details. All conversation is general and practice-based.
Not open to DHS or DOJ (including DVT) personnel or affiliates.
Meeting Structure:
Hour 1: Legal professionals speak freely and use technical legal terminology.
Hour 2: The pace slows to ensure accessibility for non-attorney advocates and broader community members. All are welcome to stay.
This is a confidential, collaborative space for mutual learning, skill-building, and issue-spotting across Vermont’s immigration legal and advocacy ecosystem.
AI Note-Taking & Information Sharing
We use AI-assisted tools (Microsoft Copilot) to generate anonymized summaries of key insights and systemic trends.
No personal or client information is recorded.
Notes are securely stored and shared with participants upon request.
The goal is to reduce redundancy, track evolving best practices, and ensure access for colleagues who cannot attend in real time.
Please let us know if you prefer your contributions not be summarized in shared notes.
Key Updates & Announcements
Key Insights and Practice Notes
Bond Proceedings: Evidentiary Standards and Advocacy Approaches
Immigration bond proceedings continue to present a challenging evidentiary landscape. The government frequently relies on arrest history, police reports, or other forms of hearsay to argue that a respondent poses a danger to the community. Because the evidentiary standard in immigration court is minimal—any “credible evidence” is admissible and the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply—advocates must affirmatively rebut these allegations, even absent formal charges or convictions.
Practice tips:
Submit FBI background checks and state police reports to demonstrate an absence of criminal history for newly arrived clients.
Preemptively address any arrest or incident history, even if charges were never filed, by submitting declarations and corroborating documents (e.g., employer letters, housing stability, family support).
Cite Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006), and relevant regional bond precedent, to argue that DHS bears the burden to show danger by clear and convincing evidence.
Procedural Outcomes and Case Strategy
While ICE may indicate an intention to dismiss removal proceedings, the timeline for action is often ambiguous or delayed. Advocates should be prepared for fluid procedural outcomes, including dismissals based on technical failures such as non-appearance by both parties.
Practice tips:
Where DHS has expressed intent to dismiss, consider submitting a courtesy motion to facilitate action and preserve the procedural record.
In cases of unexpected outcomes (e.g., dismissals due to absence), immediately request written orders and assess whether voluntary or inadvertent, and whether reissuance or refiling is warranted.
Maintain real-time communication with court staff regarding docket order when clients are delayed or in transit.
Remote vs. In-Person Hearings: Strategic Considerations
Post-pandemic practice has normalized Webex appearances for represented parties in many non-detained hearings. However, there remain strategic and evidentiary considerations when deciding between virtual and in-person appearances.
Practice tips:
For hearings involving contested issues of credibility or discretionary relief, consider requesting in-person appearance to ensure the adjudicator can assess demeanor and direct testimony.
For detained clients appearing virtually, document physical condition and appearance (e.g., signs of distress, illness, or facility conditions) in the hearing transcript to preserve for appeal or future habeas relief.
When requesting in-person hearings, include logistical challenges (e.g., lack of stable Webex access, interpretation complications) in motion practice to support necessity.
Advocacy and Legislative Developments
Ongoing state-level discussions regarding Vermont’s detention infrastructure, particularly the use of state facilities for ICE-detained individuals, have potential implications for federal court access. A key concern is preserving access to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, one of the few remaining federal courts actively reviewing immigration-related habeas petitions and constitutional claims.
A pending proposal would limit Vermont-based detention to individuals apprehended within the state. If implemented carefully, this could mitigate ICE expansion while preserving critical access to local judicial review.
Practice tips:
Monitor the status of proposed modifications to the Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) governing ICE use of Vermont facilities.
Coordinate with impact litigation partners, including the ACLU of Vermont and national legal advocacy organizations, to ensure readiness to challenge any provisions that may infringe on access to counsel, due process, or federal habeas jurisdiction.
Maintain records of communications barriers (e.g., telephonic access, mail delays, lack of interpretation) as part of evidentiary foundation for challenging remote detention conditions.
Recommended Action Steps
Client Case Progression
Await FBI and State Background Confirmation: Hold off on filing bond motions until records confirm lack of criminal history; if delayed, submit FOIA receipt and motion for continuance citing Matter of Adeniji.
Renew Bond Request: Once background is cleared, submit a renewed bond motion with updated evidence and declarations emphasizing the respondent’s ties and absence of danger.
Change of Venue: If bond is granted and release is secured, promptly file Form EOIR-33 and Motion to Change Venue to Vermont for improved logistical access.
Strategize Hearing Format: Evaluate whether upcoming hearings should proceed via Webex or be converted to in-person based on evidentiary needs, interpreter availability, and client condition.
Organizational Coordination and Capacity Building
Seth’s Hearing: Finalize case preparation and attend hearing Thursday; evaluate how the court applies the current bond standard to respondents with no criminal record.
Anticipate ICE Delays: Remain alert to delays in motion practice by DHS and adjust briefing calendars accordingly.
Leverage Procedural Dynamics: Continue to use procedural irregularities (e.g., non-appearances, administrative closures, judge unavailability) to protect clients’ interests.
Expand SIJ Casework: Maintain momentum on Special Immigrant Juvenile filings and related guardianship or dependency orders.
Policy Engagement and Litigation Preparation
Track IGSA Amendments: Engage with policymakers and submit comment or testimony, as needed, to safeguard due process and federal court access.
Support the Vermont-Only Bed Proposal: If implemented with safeguards, this could prevent out-of-state ICE expansion and preserve local legal jurisdiction.
Coordinate with Litigators: Ensure readiness to support or file constitutional litigation alongside ACLU and national partners in the event of detention expansion or access restrictions.
Rapid Response for Detention: Prioritize in-person intake within 24–48 hours of detention notification to establish representation and obtain signed G-28s and Form EOIR-28s.
Build Habeas Infrastructure: Continue development of habeas corpus templates; provide training opportunities for staff and interested pro bono attorneys; liaise with the Vermont Defender General’s Office and the private criminal defense bar.
Track and Report Detentions: Establish clear internal protocols for reporting newly detained individuals to VAAP leadership and partner organizations to support coordinated representation.
Document Barriers to Representation: Maintain internal logs of communication delays, translation issues, and other logistical impediments to assist in systemic advocacy and potential litigation.
