How can individuals subject to ICE deportation proceedings appeal or seek relief?

1. The Fast Track: Appealing an Immigration Judge’s Order to the BIA

Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals are the primary and time-sensitive route for contesting an immigration judge’s removal decision; most appeals must be filed within 30 days using EOIR forms and supporting legal briefs explaining why the judge erred ^{[1] [2]}. The appeal typically requires Form EOIR-26 or an equivalent EOIR filing and careful briefing; representation by counsel substantially affects outcomes because the government will be represented by attorneys arguing for removal ^[1]. Variations matter: final orders, in absentia rulings, and expedited removals each have distinct appellate procedures and, in some cases, narrower windows or different forums, so practitioners must identify the exact order type before selecting the appeal vehicle ^{[1] [6]}.

2. When New Evidence Emerges: Motions to Reopen and Reconsider

A motion to reopen asks the court to review a removal order because of new, material evidence or changed country conditions and is generally governed by a 90-day filing deadline from the final order, with exceptions in narrow circumstances such as changed country conditions or ineffective assistance of prior counsel ^{[3] [5]}. Motions to reconsider challenge legal or factual errors in the original decision and must meet stringent standards; both motions require affidavits, evidentiary support, and adherence to procedural norms to avoid rejection ^{[3] [7]}. Practice advisories stress that motions based on ineffective assistance require establishing prejudice and often filing within tight timeframes, and courts may apply doctrines like substantial compliance when assessing technical defects ^[3].

3. Parallel Paths: USCIS Motions and Administrative Appeals

Certain adverse USCIS decisions tied to removal-related benefits can be contested using Form I-290B, the Notice of Appeal or Motion, which must be filed within 30 days and carries filing fees unless an exception applies; I-290B cannot be used to appeal consular visa denials and has specific limitations tied to the agency that issued the decision ^[2]. Where EOIR and USCIS jurisdictions intersect, litigants may pursue administrative appeals to the Administrative Appeals Office or motions within USCIS, but the correct filing office and deadline differ depending on whether the underlying decision arose in immigration court or at USCIS ^{[2] [6]}. Procedural missteps—wrong form, missed fee, or incorrect docket—commonly doom relief, underscoring the need for accurate procedural workup ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Substantive Relief Options: Asylum, Cancellation, Adjustment, and More

Beyond procedural remedies, individuals may seek substantive relief that, if granted, halts removal—asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, TPS, and humanitarian parole are among the options discussed in recent overviews ^{[4] [8]}. Eligibility is highly fact-specific: cancellation for non-permanent residents requires continuous presence and good moral character; asylum demands showing persecution or a well-founded fear thereof; adjustment of status depends on visa availability and qualifying relationship or classification ^[4]. These paths can lead not only to stays of removal but to lawful status, and successful applications typically require presenting credible, corroborated evidence and often hinge on convincing legal arguments before EOIR or USCIS ^{[9] [8]}.

5. Practical Realities: Timing, Counsel, and Strategic Options

Practitioners and advisories uniformly emphasize that timely counsel, accurate filings, and strategic choices—appeal versus motion, administrative relief versus substantive application—determine outcomes; missed deadlines or procedural errors frequently eliminate options ^{[1] [3]}. Prosecutorial discretion requests, stays of removal, or voluntary departure can buy time but are discretionary and not guaranteed; some relief avenues like motions based on ineffective assistance require additional steps such as bar complaints in certain contexts though courts sometimes allow flexibility ^[3]. The landscape is fragmented: different agencies, fee schedules, and procedural windows apply, so respondents must map their precise order type and statutory eligibility before filing to preserve all viable remedies ^{[1] [9]}.