ICE Ramped Up Deportations in 2025

(OKLAHOMA) — Non–Lawful Permanent Resident (non-LPR) cancellation of removal has become a central defense strategy for many families facing heightened interior enforcement tied to Operation Guardian and the 2025 surge in Formal Removals (Deportations) and Total Departures.

For Indian nationals and other immigrants placed in removal proceedings after workplace checks, traffic stops, or jail screenings, cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1) can be a last-resort form of relief. It is also one of the hardest to win.

The legal standard is strict, the evidence burden is heavy, and outcomes depend on the facts and the immigration court’s jurisdiction. Attorney representation is not just helpful here. It is often decisive.

National Overview of 2025 Enforcement

Federal enforcement rose sharply in 2025, according to the DHS Year in Review 2025 and DHS statements released January 20, 2026. Those materials describe historic levels of enforcement activity.

Key metrics include several major categories that matter for defense planning because higher enforcement volume typically means more cases, faster dockets in some locations, and more respondents forced to defend without stable access to counsel.

• Total Departures: Nearly 3 million people left the United States in 2025.
• Formal Removals (Deportations): More than 675,000 people were formally removed.
• Self-departures: DHS estimated 2.2 million departures were voluntary, following stricter interior enforcement.
• ICE arrests: More than 595,000 administrative arrests nationwide.

DHS publicly attributed the increase to a “crackdown on illegal immigration,” including expanded interior enforcement. These numbers matter in immigration court because they affect docket speed and access to counsel.

Warning: If ICE has issued a Notice to Appear (NTA), do not assume you can “wait it out.” Missing a hearing can trigger an in-absentia removal order under INA § 240(b)(5).

Oklahoma Enforcement: Operation Guardian and 287(g)

Oklahoma experienced a major increase in enforcement activity in 2025. The state-federal effort branded as Operation Guardian, paired with expanded cooperation mechanisms such as 287(g), coincided with rapid growth in arrests and removals.

Arrests that begin as traffic or licensing encounters can quickly become detainers, custody transfers, and expedited case settings. That is particularly concerning for noncitizens with older entries, complicated paperwork histories, or prior removal orders.

• Over 2,700 deportations in the first half of 2025, a 125% rise over the same period in 2024.
• A 133.5% surge in immigration arrests statewide, averaging nearly 10 arrests per day.
• In ICE’s Dallas Area of Responsibility (AOR), covering Oklahoma and North Texas, 12,100 arrests occurred between January 20 and October 16, 2025, a 108% year-over-year increase.
• Targeted operations included a 30-hour enforcement action producing 120 arrests, and a later “Eastern Corridor” operation with 70 arrests, reported to focus on commercial truck drivers.

Policy Details and Significance for Defense Planning

Operation Guardian was reported to have launched in late 2024 or early 2025, with cross-agency integration that credentialed Oklahoma Highway Patrol to work alongside federal immigration enforcement. State agencies were reportedly integrated into ICE-led task forces.

At the federal level, several policy changes described in official materials reshaped risk calculus and detention dynamics for respondents and defense practitioners.

1. Funding expansion. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted in July 2025, reportedly increased ICE’s budget to $85 billion, expanded detention capacity to 100,000 beds, and added 12,000 officers. Expanded capacity often changes detention decisions and bond dynamics.
2. Expanded expedited removal. DHS implemented policies in 2025 allowing expedited removal of undocumented individuals found anywhere in the U.S. if they cannot prove more than two years of continuous residence. This matters because expedited removal limits access to an immigration judge unless the person establishes a fear claim or falls outside the expedited process.
3. Public-facing tracking. DHS promoted public tracking of “criminal aliens,” while reporting suggested that a notable share of arrestees in some areas had no prior criminal convictions.

For defense attorneys, these conditions mean earlier intervention is critical. Once a person is detained, timelines compress, documents become harder to gather, and family-based evidence can be difficult to present coherently.

Deadline Watch: If you are detained, the court may schedule an initial hearing quickly. Ask counsel about requesting time to gather evidence and file applications properly, especially for cancellation under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11.

The Defense Strategy: Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal (INA § 240A(b)(1))

1) Eligibility requirements (what must be proven)

To qualify for non-LPR cancellation, a respondent must generally show all of the following elements. Each element is statutory and courts apply strict standards.

• Ten years of continuous physical presence in the U.S. immediately before applying. See INA § 240A(b)(1)(A).
• Good moral character during that period. See INA § 240A(b)(1)(B) and INA § 101(f).
• No disqualifying convictions. The statute requires the person not be convicted of specified offenses. See INA § 240A(b)(1)(C). This often overlaps with inadmissibility and deportability grounds under INA § 212(a)(2) and INA § 237(a)(2).
• Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, meaning a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. See INA § 240A(b)(1)(D).

The hardship standard is far above normal family separation. The Board has described it as a demanding test in cases such as Matter of Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001), Matter of Andazola, 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002), and Matter of Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002).

2) Evidence typically needed (what wins cases)

Most strong cancellation cases are built like a trial record, not a simple packet. Common evidence categories cover presence, qualifying-relative proof, hardship documentation, and character proof.

• Presence evidence (10 years): leases, tax transcripts, pay stubs, school records, medical records, bank statements, I-94 history if any, and affidavits from employers and community members.
• Qualifying relative proof: birth certificates, green cards, passports, and evidence of legal custody where relevant.
• Hardship documentation: medical diagnoses, treatment plans, and physician letters; special education plans (IEPs), therapy records, and school evaluations; mental health records and expert evaluations; country-conditions evidence tied to the child’s or spouse’s specific needs; financial records showing dependence and lack of alternatives.
• Good moral character record: letters of support, community involvement, religious participation, and proof of compliance with court orders.
• Criminal and driving history: certified dispositions for every arrest or citation that reached court, even if dismissed.

Indian nationals often have additional helpful documentation available, such as consistent remittance records, long-term employer evidence, and school histories for U.S.-citizen children. Those documents can support both physical presence and hardship.

Warning: Do not file based on assumptions about your criminal record. Get certified dispositions. Immigration consequences can turn on exact statutory language.

Factors that strengthen or weaken cancellation cases

Hardship is evaluated in the “totality of circumstances.” Credibility and paperwork discipline often determine whether the judge believes the hardship narrative.

Below are typical factors that often make a case stronger or weaker during adjudication and litigation.

• Typically stronger: U.S.-citizen children with special medical or educational needs; a spouse or parent who is a qualifying relative and medically fragile; clear, uninterrupted documentation for the full 10-year period; no criminal history, or only minor issues with strong rehabilitation evidence; a credible plan showing why relocation is unrealistic for the qualifying relative.
• Typically weaker: Hardship based mainly on financial loss or general country conditions; gaps in documentation that undermine continuous presence; inconsistent testimony across prior filings, visas, or encounters with officers; domestic violence allegations, DUI history, or multiple arrests, even without conviction; prior immigration fraud findings or false-claim issues.

These are general tendencies; individual cases vary. Judges will look at the whole record when weighing discretion and statutory requirements.

Disqualifying factors and common legal traps

Several issues can defeat cancellation before hardship is even considered. Practitioners and respondents should be alert to statutory bars and procedural pitfalls.

• Stop-time rule. Service of an NTA can stop accrual of continuous presence under INA § 240A(d)(1). Litigation about NTA requirements can be complex and circuit-dependent after Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021).
• Certain criminal convictions can bar eligibility under INA § 240A(b)(1)(C), and may also create mandatory detention or ineligibility for bond in some cases.
• Good moral character bars under INA § 101(f), including issues tied to certain offenses or conduct.
• Prior removal orders or reinstatement scenarios can shift the case into different procedures with fewer options.
• Expedited removal risk for those unable to prove two years’ presence, given 2025 policy descriptions. In expedited removal, access to court can be limited.

Because Operation Guardian-related enforcement may begin at roadside encounters, people sometimes sign paperwork without counsel. That can create long-term consequences.

Realistic expectations in 2026: what this relief can and cannot do

Cancellation of removal is discretionary. Even if a respondent proves every element, the judge can still deny as a matter of discretion. Annual statutory caps also exist for non-LPR cancellation grants. See INA § 240A(e)(1).

In the current enforcement climate—marked by record Formal Removals (Deportations) and nearly 3 million Total Departures in 2025—many families should expect aggressive government litigation of hardship and credibility.

• Faster hearing schedules for detained cases.
• Heavy documentation demands, especially for medical hardship.
• Close scrutiny of any criminal or driving record.

That does not mean relief is impossible. It means preparation must be professional-grade.

Official sources and where to verify developments

Readers can review official materials at:

• EOIR Immigration Court: https://www.justice.gov/eoir
• USCIS policy updates: https://www.uscis.gov

The government sources referenced in public reporting include the DHS Year in Review 2025, a January 20, 2026 DHS statement, ICE announcements about Oklahoma operations, and an Oklahoma Governor’s Office update on Operation Guardian.

Why attorney representation is critical

Non-LPR cancellation requires litigation strategy, witness preparation, and careful handling of criminal and immigration records. Lawyers also evaluate alternative or parallel options, such as asylum, withholding, CAT, adjustment of status, motions to terminate, suppression motions in limited contexts, or administrative closure where available.

For Indian nationals, counsel can also analyze whether prior lawful entries, old petitions, or employment histories open other paths. H-1B histories, prior I-94s, and prior consular filings can become key evidence, but they can also create inconsistencies if not handled carefully.

Action Item: If you or a family member is arrested or placed in proceedings, consult a qualified immigration attorney immediately. Early representation can preserve evidence and procedural rights.

Resources:

• AILA Lawyer Referral