Advocates Expand Legal Aid as Immigration Enforcement Intensifies

(UNITED STATES) — If you are placed in removal proceedings during today’s high-intensity enforcement surge, the most practical “defense strategy” is to secure counsel quickly and build a record for relief—especially asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—before fast-moving custody decisions and filing deadlines close options.

DHS officials are describing the current push as the “largest immigration enforcement operation ever,” and that framing matters because it signals speed: more arrests, more detention, and shorter timelines to respond.

In that environment, even people with viable claims can lose cases because they miss a deadline, waive rights at a first hearing, or fail to submit required evidence.

This article explains core humanitarian defenses in immigration court, how they fit into the current enforcement posture, and what case-building looks like in real time.

It also explains why the Vera Institute of Justice and allied groups are pressing for legal aid expansion—because representation often determines whether a person can actually present a legally valid claim.

1) Official enforcement operations & what “review” can trigger procedurally

DHS and USCIS have described a shift toward a high-intensity posture under Secretary Kristi Noem, coupled with public statements emphasizing fraud and public safety.

Readers should separate what is measurable (arrests, policy memos, case backlogs) from what is rhetorical (broad labels like “largest operation”).

Two examples show the range of current tactics:

Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening)

Operation PARRIS. Announced January 9, 2026, it involves re-examining refugee approvals from January 2021 through early 2025, beginning with about 5,600 refugees in Minnesota.

A “re-interview” or “reverification” can include identity questions, travel history review, document checks, and security vetting.

Depending on what is found, it can lead to requests for evidence, a fraud referral, termination efforts in certain statuses, or removal proceedings.

Operation Buckeye

Operation Buckeye. Reported as a targeted enforcement action in Ohio (Dec. 16–21, 2025) with more than 280 arrests.

Operations like this often involve coordination messaging with local law enforcement, even when immigration authority remains federal.

For defense planning, the key issue is speed: arrest to detention to first hearing can move quickly.

Warning (Act fast in detention): In detained cases, court dates, bond hearings, and filing deadlines can arrive within days. Waiting to “see what happens” often reduces options.

2) Why advocates want legal aid expansion—and why counsel changes the defense posture

On January 8, 2026, a coalition of 100+ organizations launched the CARE (Access, Representation, and Equity) for Immigrant Families campaign.

The effort is led in part by the Vera Institute of Justice. Their core request is legal aid expansion, including $175 million in FY 2027 for statewide immigration legal services.

They are also supporting two broad legislative concepts:

• Access to Representation Act: A proposed guarantee of counsel for people facing deportation.
• Building Up Immigrant Legal Defense Act: A multi-year fund aimed at “legal infrastructure,” meaning more attorneys, trained support staff, pro bono coordination, and capacity for detained representation.

It helps to distinguish three roles that often get blended together:

1. Policy advocacy: lobbying for laws and funding.
2. Direct legal services: lawyers entering appearances, filing motions, and litigating.
3. Community support and know-your-rights education: practical guidance that is helpful, but not a substitute for legal work.

Representation matters more when detention grows because detained respondents face restricted access to documents, witnesses, translators, and medical records.

They also face pressure to accept removal, stipulate to allegations, or abandon claims.

3) The primary defense: humanitarian protection in immigration court (asylum, withholding, CAT)

A. Asylum (INA § 208)

What it is: Discretionary protection that can lead to permanent status later.

Basic eligibility: You must show you are a “refugee,” meaning past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. See INA § 101(a)(42).

Deadlines: Most applicants must file within one year of last arrival, unless an exception applies. See INA § 208(a)(2)(B)–(D).

Key standards: Credible testimony can be sufficient, but corroboration is often expected when reasonably available. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(ii)–(iii).

B. Withholding of removal (INA § 241(b)(3))

What it is: Mandatory protection if proven, but narrower than asylum. It does not create a path to permanent residence.

Standard: “More likely than not” persecution on a protected ground. This is a higher burden than asylum.

C. CAT protection (8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18)

What it is: Protection if it is more likely than not that you would be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.

Important distinction: CAT does not require a protected ground. It is often used when asylum bars apply.

Key precedent on credibility/corroboration: Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260 (BIA 2007).

Key precedent on asylum framework and burdens: Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987).

Deadline (the one-year rule): If you may seek asylum, talk to counsel immediately about the one-year filing deadline and exceptions. Missing it can push you into withholding/CAT only.

4) Evidence that typically makes or breaks protection claims

In many cases, winning turns on organization and corroboration more than rhetoric.

Common evidence includes:

• Personal declaration with dates, locations, actors, threats, and why the harm links to a protected ground.
• Country conditions reports and reputable news articles showing patterns consistent with your account.
• Medical or psychological records documenting injuries or trauma, if available.
• Police reports or complaints showing attempts to seek protection, or evidence that protection was unavailable.
• Witness declarations from family, community members, or experts.
• Social media or digital evidence showing threats, political activity, or targeting.
• Identity and travel records that match your narrative and reduce credibility disputes.

In refugee re-review contexts, consistent biographic history is critical. That includes names, dates, addresses, affiliations, and prior statements.

5) Factors that strengthen—or weaken—cases in today’s environment

Strengtheners

• Consistency across records. Prior applications, border interviews, and USCIS filings often become impeachment evidence.
• Specificity. Vague accounts are easier to challenge under credibility rules.
• Documented nexus. Evidence connecting harm to a protected ground, not only general crime.
• Early attorney involvement. Counsel can control the first impression in court and preserve issues for appeal.

Weakeners

• Missed hearings. In absentia orders can be hard to reopen. See INA § 240(b)(5).
• Unreviewed prior statements. Credible-fear notes and past declarations may contain errors.
• Gaps created by policy shifts. Shorter EAD validity and the end of automatic extensions can destabilize housing and employment, which then affects case preparation.

Current policy changes can add friction even outside court:

• Expanded travel restrictions may trigger extra screening or delays.
• USCIS “adjudicative holds” under PM-602-0194 may pause benefits for people from designated “high-risk” countries.
• EAD validity reductions to 18 months can force frequent renewals and employer reverification.
• TPS terminations can place people into removal defense posture if no alternative status exists.

Warning (do not travel casually): If you have pending proceedings, prior orders, or an application on hold, international travel can trigger detention or denial. Consult counsel before any departure.

6) Bars and disqualifiers you must screen for early

Some issues can bar asylum or limit forms of relief:

• Certain criminal convictions may bar asylum and withholding, and can create mandatory detention. Analysis is offense-specific and often requires a criminal-immigration specialist.
• Persecutor bar and terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds can apply in complex ways.
• Firm resettlement may bar asylum when a person had an offer of permanent status elsewhere.
• Prior removal orders can change procedures and raise reinstatement issues. See INA § 241(a)(5).

Because bars can shift the strategy toward CAT, motions practice, or other relief, early legal screening is essential.

7) Realistic outcome expectations—and why representation is critical

Immigration court outcomes vary sharply by court, judge, detention status, and case type.

Public reporting has long shown that represented respondents tend to complete applications correctly, meet deadlines, and present corroboration.

That is not a guarantee of success, and many represented cases still lose. But in a period described by DHS as the “largest immigration enforcement operation ever,” the practical difference is often procedural survival: getting a bond packet filed, preserving appeal rights, and building a record.

If you are detained or think you may be placed in proceedings, do not wait for the “master calendar” hearing to start building evidence.

A qualified attorney can also assess non-humanitarian relief such as cancellation of removal (INA § 240A), adjustment strategies, or motions to terminate based on defects.

8) How to monitor official updates and verify authenticity

Use official hubs and read original documents, not summaries.

When reading policy memos, confirm the memo number and date, then read “applicability” sections. Watch for later guidance that supersedes earlier language.

Save links and cross-check headlines against the posting.

Resources:

– AILA lawyer search