(UNITED STATES) — A practical defense strategy in 2026 removal and vetting cases is to challenge, cabin, and test DHS “intelligence” information when it shows up as derogatory evidence in immigration court, at USCIS, or at the border—especially as Congress advances and enacts reforms aimed at tighter oversight, privacy guardrails, and internal accountability inside DHS.
This article explains how those reform themes connect to day-to-day immigration defense work, what lawyers typically file, and what facts and documents tend to make these challenges stronger.
1) Overview: Congressional focus on DHS intelligence reform
“DHS intelligence” is a broad label. It generally includes threat analysis, information sharing, and operational support to components like ICE, CBP, TSA, and CISA. In practice, it can also include tips, watchlist-related flags, and analytic products that influence enforcement priorities and vetting.
Reform efforts often accelerate when lawmakers are worried about infrastructure threats and cyber risks. Those concerns can increase information sharing across agencies. That can be useful operationally, but it can also raise questions about:
- Oversight: Who reviews intelligence activity, and how often?
- Legal guardrails: What limits exist on collection, use, retention, and sharing?
- Accountability: What happens when documentation is thin, or rules are ignored?
How to read the rest of this guide
Some reforms are bills (not yet law). Others are enacted. Even enacted provisions may require agency guidance before day-to-day practices change. Defense counsel should track both. Bills can shape agency behavior and oversight pressure even before enactment.
For immigration defense, the practical question is simple: When DHS relies on intelligence-derived claims, can DHS prove reliability, lawful sourcing, and fair process? If not, attorneys may seek to limit use, compel disclosure, or in some cases terminate proceedings.
2) H.R. 2261: Strengthening Oversight of DHS Intelligence (bill status matters)
H.R. 2261 aims to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to strengthen oversight of certain DHS intelligence matters and increase privacy protections tied to DHS intelligence information.
In plain language, “amending” the Homeland Security Act here signals Congress wants more structured oversight and clearer expectations for compliance. If enacted and implemented, that can translate into more:
- Documentation of intelligence activities and decisions
- Reporting up leadership channels and to Congress
- Periodic reviews of whether programs meet legal and policy standards
- Compliance controls around access, retention, and sharing
From a defense perspective, stronger internal controls can create clearer “paper trails.” Those trails can matter when a client faces a vague allegation like “derogatory information” or “national security concern.”
Privacy-protection language in oversight bills typically targets common risk points, including:
- Collection limits (collect only what is authorized and necessary)
- Access controls (who can see what, and why)
- Retention discipline (how long data is kept)
- Sharing rules (when dissemination is permitted, and with what caveats)
Legislative posture
H.R. 2261 has been advanced out of committee and sent to the full House for further action. That posture is meaningful, but it does not itself change the rules tomorrow. It must still pass both chambers and be signed, and then DHS often must issue implementation guidance.
Warning (practice point): In immigration cases, advocates should not assume a reform bill changes evidentiary rules until it becomes law and is implemented. Judges and officers will usually apply current statutes, regulations, and precedent.
Where this shows up in immigration procedure
- In immigration court, the respondent has statutory rights to examine evidence and cross-examine government witnesses. See INA § 240(b)(4)(B).
- At USCIS, the agency often relies on 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) when it uses derogatory information. The degree of disclosure can be contested.
- At the border, CBP inspections and expedited removal processes add timing pressure. Counsel may later litigate reliability and disclosure in EOIR.
Helpful official references include EOIR’s site on court practice and updates: EOIR website and USCIS policy and forms: USCIS guidance.
3) Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026: enacted reforms with DHS operational effects
Unlike a standalone bill still moving through Congress, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 became law as a division within the National Defense Authorization Act. That “must-pass” vehicle often drives faster agency action. Agencies treat it as a direct operational mandate.
Key enacted themes that can ripple into immigration-adjacent decision-making include:
Annual surveys of analytic objectivity
Annual surveys aimed at “analytic objectivity” are designed to detect whether intelligence officers perceive pressure, bias, or distortions in analytic work. Over time, that kind of mechanism can influence training, management reviews, and internal reporting.
For immigration defense, the relevance is indirect but real. When DHS relies on analytic products to support enforcement decisions, counsel can frame questions about:
- The methodology behind the assessment
- Whether the product reflects assumptions versus verified facts
- Whether DHS can provide underlying sourcing or at least a meaningful summary
Security clearance process changes
Reforms touching “inactive clearances,” SCI eligibility standards, and adjudicative guideline updates reflect Congress’s focus on workforce screening and continued eligibility.
This does not automatically change immigration legal standards. But it can affect who has access to sensitive data and how internal checks occur. In litigation, that may influence:
- Which DHS employees can credibly testify to sourcing
- Whether DHS can produce a witness with actual knowledge
- The government’s arguments for withholding information as sensitive
Delayed-effective-date repeal provisions
Congress also included a repeal of authorities related to new national intelligence centers with a delayed effective date. A delayed effective date typically gives agencies time for transition, wind-down, and continuity planning.
The key defense takeaway is timing. Even when a provision is enacted, some changes take effect later. If a client’s case spans that transition window, counsel may need to pinpoint which policy regime applied at each step.
Deadline (timing reminder): Some enacted intelligence provisions become effective only after a delayed period following enactment. For cases involving older records or multi-year vetting, attorneys often track dates closely to evaluate what rules applied when.
What to watch next, without guessing outcomes:
- DHS implementing memos and internal directives
- Inspector General or congressional reporting
- Training updates that affect how derogatory information is documented
Congressional materials and bill text can be tracked at Congress.gov.
4) H.R. 2212: rotational assignments and law enforcement support
H.R. 2212 would establish a rotational assignment program for DHS intelligence personnel and address support for law enforcement operations.
A rotational assignment program generally aims to standardize skills and improve cross-component coordination. Operational goals often include:
- Common training baselines across components
- Better understanding of component missions and legal constraints
- More consistent oversight culture and documentation norms
Governance details matter for civil liberties and immigration spillover. Selection criteria, supervision, recordkeeping, and information-sharing boundaries can determine whether the program improves compliance or increases “mission creep.”
“Support for law enforcement operations” can include analytic support, deconfliction, and information sharing. Those functions can be legitimate, but they must still respect privacy and civil liberties rules.
Warning (defense lens): When information is shared across components, errors can replicate. Counsel should consider whether a client is fighting a single allegation, or a repeated data point that spread across systems.
5) Congressional oversight context: why hearings matter for defense strategy
Oversight hearings are a pressure tool. They are meant to surface performance gaps, demand threat briefings, and push implementation.
Hearings that include CISA, TSA, and DHS S&T in the same ecosystem as intelligence reform reflect how interconnected cyber and physical threats have become. It also reflects how “intelligence” and “operations” often blur inside DHS.
For immigration defense, oversight themes can help counsel frame issues in briefs and records requests, including:
- Privacy and civil liberties concerns
- Overbroad collection and retention concerns
- Operational effectiveness versus overreach arguments
- Requests for information, audits, or reporting that may later become discoverable or citeable
Defense strategy: challenging DHS intelligence-based derogatory information in immigration matters
A) The relief/defense option
The core defense is not a single “application.” It is a bundle of procedural tools to ensure fair process when DHS relies on intelligence-derived information:
- Motions to suppress or terminate in removal proceedings (fact-dependent)
- Motions to compel production or seek meaningful summaries
- Objections to reliability and foundation under immigration court evidentiary standards
- FOIA/Privacy Act requests to identify erroneous records and sourcing (often slow)
- USCIS rebuttals to derogatory information under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16), when applicable
Immigration court suppression law is limited. The Supreme Court has restricted the exclusionary rule in immigration proceedings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984). Some circuits recognize broader suppression in egregious cases. Outcomes can vary by jurisdiction.
The BIA has addressed suppression frameworks and burdens in cases such as Matter of Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609 (BIA 1988).
B) Eligibility requirements (what must be shown)
Because this is a procedural defense, “eligibility” is really about meeting legal thresholds:
- For suppression/termination, counsel typically must show an unlawful or egregious violation, or that evidence is unreliable and its use would be fundamentally unfair. Circuit law matters.
- For due process arguments, respondents often must show both error and prejudice.
- For USCIS rebuttals, the applicant usually must respond to disclosed derogatory information, explain inaccuracies, and provide contrary evidence.
C) Evidence that typically helps
- The exact charging documents and all DHS exhibits
- I-213 and underlying source records when available
- Records of prior encounters, including CBP and USCIS notes
- Expert declarations on country conditions or group targeting, if relevant
- Proof of mistaken identity, data errors, or inconsistent biographical details
- FOIA productions showing duplicated or recycled allegations
Tip for respondents and applicants: Keep a timeline of every border stop, interview, and filing. Small date and name mismatches often drive “derogatory” flags.
D) Strengthening versus weakening factors
- Strengthening factors:
- Concrete proof of error (wrong person, wrong date, wrong event)
- Lack of foundation, multiple hearsay, or contradictions in DHS records
- Evidence the government cannot provide a witness with knowledge
- Clear prejudice, such as denial of a statutory right under INA § 240(b)(4)(B)
- Weakening factors:
- Courts deferring to government sensitivity claims
- Limited discovery in EOIR
- Genuine criminal or security-related conduct supported by independent records
E) Disqualifying bars (relief-specific)
Even if counsel defeats one allegation, clients may still face statutory bars depending on the relief sought. Examples include criminal bars to asylum or cancellation. See INA § 208(b)(2) and INA § 240A. A defense plan must align the procedural challenge with the client’s relief eligibility.
F) Realistic expectations
Many cases end with partial wins: narrowing allegations, correcting records, or forcing clearer notice. Full suppression or termination is possible in the right fact pattern, but it is not routine. Jurisdiction and facts control.
G) Why attorney representation is critical
Intelligence-adjacent allegations often involve withheld sources, fast timelines, and high stakes. Counsel can:
- Preserve objections and build a record for appeal to the BIA and circuit court
- Use tailored FOIA strategies
- Coordinate immigration, criminal, and national-security counsel where needed
UK readers may recognize parallels. The UK system has its own national security and closed-material frameworks. The procedural tools differ. The common thread is that representation is essential when government-sensitive information is in play.
Legal resources (official and practitioner)
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
