The agency tasked with carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign is undergoing a major staff reorganization.

In a news release Thursday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced leadership changes at the department tasked with finding, arresting and removing immigrants who no longer have the right to be in the country as well as at the agency’s investigative division.

Kenneth Genalo, who had been the acting director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, is retiring and will serve as a special government employee with ICE. Robert Hammer, who has been the acting head of Homeland Security Investigations, will transition to another leadership role at headquarters.

The agency said Marcos Charles will become the new acting head of ERO while Derek Gordon will be the acting head at HSI. ICE also announced a host of other staff changes at various departments within the agency.

ICE said the changes would “help ICE achieve President Trump and the American people’s mandate of arresting and deporting criminal illegal aliens and making American communities safe.”

The news comes after White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said on Fox News earlier this week that the administration was setting a goal of 3,000 arrests by ICE each day and that the number could go higher.

“President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every single day,” said Miller.

Three thousand arrests per day would mark a huge increase in daily arrests from current figures. Between Jan. 20 and May 19 the agency arrested 78,155 people, which translates to an average of 656 arrests per day.

This is the latest staff shakeup at an agency that is central to Trump’s vision of removing everyone in the country illegally. In February, the acting director of ICE was reassigned as well as two other top ICE officials.

Carrying out deportations, especially in high numbers, poses logistical challenges.

There are a limited number of enforcement and removal officers — those tasked with tracking down, arresting and removing people in the country illegally — and the number of officers has remained stagnant for years. ICE also has a limited number of detention beds to hold people once arrested and a limited number of planes to remove them from the country.

But the administration is pushing for a major funding boost as part of a package in Congress that could supercharge immigration enforcement. The plan would aim to fund the removal of 1 million immigrants annually and house 100,000 people in detention centers. The plan also calls for 10,000 more ICE officers and investigators.

They arrive at the U.S. border from around the world: Eritrea, Guatemala, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ghana, Uzbekistan and so many other countries.

They come for asylum, insisting they face persecution for their religion, or sexuality or for supporting the wrong politicians.

For generations, they had been given the chance to make their case to U.S. authorities.

Not anymore.

“They didn’t give us an ICE officer to talk to. They didn’t give us an interview. No one asked me what happened,” said a Russian election worker who sought asylum in the U.S. after he said he was caught with video recordings he made of vote rigging. On Feb. 26, he was deported to Costa Rica with his wife and young son.

On Jan. 20, just after being sworn in for a second term, President Donald Trump suspended the asylum system as part of his wide-ranging crackdown on illegal immigration, issuing a series of executive orders designed to stop what he called the “invasion” of the United States.

What asylum-seekers now find, according to lawyers, activists and immigrants, is a murky, ever-changing situation with few obvious rules, where people can be deported to countries they know nothing about after fleeting conversations with immigration officials while others languish in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.

Attorneys who work frequently with asylum-seekers at the border say their phones have gone quiet since Trump took office. They suspect many who cross are immediately expelled without a chance at asylum or are detained to wait for screening under the U.N.’s convention against torture, which is harder to qualify for than asylum.

“I don’t think it’s completely clear to anyone what happens when people show up and ask for asylum,” said Bella Mosselmans, director of the Global Strategic Litigation Council.

A thicket of lawsuits, appeals and countersuits have filled the courts as the Trump administration faces off against activists who argue the sweeping restrictions illegally put people fleeing persecution in harm’s way.

In a key legal battle, a federal judge is expected to rule on whether courts can review the administration’s use of invasion claims to justify suspending asylum. There is no date set for that ruling.

The government says its declaration of an invasion is not subject to judicial oversight, at one point calling it “an unreviewable political question.”

But rights groups fighting the asylum proclamation, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, called it “as unlawful as it is unprecedented” in the complaint filed in a Washington, D.C., federal court.

Illegal border crossings, which soared in the first years of President Joe Biden’s administration, reaching nearly 10,000 arrests per day in late 2024, dropped significantly during his last year in office and plunged further after Trump returned to the White House.

Yet more than 200 people are still arrested daily for illegally crossing the southern U.S. border. Some of those people are seeking asylum, though it’s unclear if anyone knows how many.

Paulina Reyes-Perrariz, managing attorney for the San Diego office of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said her office sometimes received 10 to 15 calls a day about asylum after Biden implemented asylum restrictions in 2024.

A budget airline that serves mostly small U.S. cities began federal deportation flights Monday out of Arizona, a move that’s inspired an online boycott petition and sharp criticism from the union representing the carrier’s flight attendants.

Avelo Airlines announced in April it had signed an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to make charter deportation flights from Mesa Gateway Airport outside Phoenix. It said it will use three Boeing 737-800 planes for the flights.

The Houston-based airline is among a host of companies seeking to cash in on President Donald Trump’s campaign for mass deportations.

Congressional deliberations began last month on a tax bill with a goal of funding, in part, the removal of 1 million immigrants annually and housing 100,000 people in U.S. detention centers. The GOP plan calls for hiring 10,000 more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and investigators.

Avelo was launched in 2021 as COVID-19 still raged and billions of taxpayer dollars were propping up big airlines. It saves money mainly by flying older Boeing 737 jets that can be bought at relatively low prices. And it operates out of less-crowded and less-costly secondary airports, flying routes that are ignored by the big airlines. It said it had its first profitable quarter in late 2023.

Andrew Levy, Avelo’s founder and chief executive, said in announcing the agreement last month that the airline’s work for ICE would help the company expand and protect jobs.

“We realize this is a sensitive and complicated topic,” said Levy, an airline industry veteran with previous stints as a senior executive at United and Allegiant airlines.

Avelo did not grant an interview request from The Associated Press.

Financial and other details of the Avelo agreement — including destinations of the deportation flights — haven’t publicly surfaced. The AP asked Avelo and ICE for a copy of the agreement, but neither provided the document. The airline said it wasn’t authorized to release the contract.

Several consumer brands have shunned being associated with deportations, a highly volatile issue that could drive away customers. During Trump’s first term, authorities housed migrant children in hotels, prompting some hotel chains to say that they wouldn’t participate.

Avelo was launched in 2021 as COVID-19 still raged and billions of taxpayer dollars were propping up big airlines. It saves money mainly by flying older Boeing 737 jets that can be bought at relatively low prices. And it operates out of less-crowded and less-costly secondary airports, flying routes that are ignored by the big airlines. It said it had its first profitable quarter in late 2023.

Andrew Levy, Avelo’s founder and chief executive, said in announcing the agreement last month that the airline’s work for ICE would help the company expand and protect jobs.

A federal judge in California on Thursday barred the Trump administration from denying or conditioning the use of federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, saying that portions of President Donald Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the injunction sought by San Francisco and more than a dozen other municipalities that limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts.

Orrick wrote that defendants are prohibited “from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds” and the administration must provide written notice of his order to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.

One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money to sanctuary jurisdictions. The second order directs every federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

At a hearing Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was much too early for the judge to grant an injunction when the government had not taken any action to withhold specific amounts or to lay out conditions on specific grants.

But Orrick, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said this was essentially what government lawyers argued during Trump’s first term when the Republican issued a similar order.

“Their well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017,” Orrick wrote, citing the executive orders as well as directives from Bondi, other federal agencies and Justice Department lawsuits filed against Chicago and New York.

San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the president exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order threatening to cut funding for “sanctuary cities.”

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces immigration laws nationwide but seeks state and local help in alerting federal authorities of immigrants wanted for deportation and holding that person until federal officers take custody.

Leaders of sanctuary jurisdictions say their communities are safer because immigrants feel they can communicate with local police without fear of deportation. It is also a way for municipalities to focus their dollars on crime locally, they say.

Besides San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which includes a third plaintiff, the city of San José, there are 13 other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which include Seattle and King County, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; and Santa Fe, New Mexico.

In the span of a week, a hush has descended on higher education in the United States.

International students and faculty have watched the growing crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University with apprehension. Some say they are familiar with government crackdowns but never expected them on American college campuses.

The elite New York City university has been the focus of the Trump administration’s effort to deport foreigners who took part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at colleges last year.

Federal immigration agents have arrested two foreigners — one of them a student — who protested last year at Columbia. They’ve revoked the visa of another student, who fled the U.S. this week. Department of Homeland Security agents also searched the on-campus residences of two Columbia students on Thursday but did not make any arrests there.

GOP officials have warned it’s just the beginning, saying more student visas are expected to be revoked in the coming days.

Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism issued a statement reporting “an alarming chill” among its foreign students in the past week.

“Many of our international students have felt afraid to come to classes and to events on campus,” said the statement signed by “The Faculty of Columbia Journalism School.”

International students and faculty across the U.S. say they feel afraid to voice opinions or stand out on campus for fear of getting kicked out of the country.

“Green-card-holding faculty members involved in any kind of advocacy that might be construed as not welcome by the Trump administration are absolutely terrified of the implications for their immigration status,” said Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Dubal, who is also general counsel for the American Association of University Professors, says some international faculty are now shying away from discourse, debate, scholarly research and publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals.

A group of American citizens and immigrants is suing the Trump administration for ending a long-standing legal tool presidents have used to allow people from countries where there’s war or political instability to enter and temporarily live in the U.S.

The lawsuit filed late Friday night seeks to reinstate humanitarian parole programs that allowed in 875,000 migrants from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who have legal U.S. resident as sponsors.

President Donald Trump has been ending legal pathways for immigrants to come to the U.S. and implementing campaign promises to deport millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally.

The plaintiffs include eight immigrants who entered the U.S. legally before the Trump administration ended what it called the “broad abuse” of humanitarian parole. They can legally stay in the U.S. until their parole expires, but the administration stopped processing their applications for asylum, visas and other requests that might allow them to remain longer.

None are identified by their real names because they fear deportation. Among them are Maksym and Maria Doe, a Ukrainian couple; Alejandro Doe, who fled Nicaragua following the abduction and torture of his father; and Omar Doe, who worked for more than 18 years with the U.S. military in his home country of Afghanistan.

“They didn’t do anything illegal. They followed the rules,” Kyle Varner, a 40-year-old doctor and real estate investor from Spokane, Washington, who sponsored 79 Venezuelans and is part of the lawsuit, told The Associated Press. “They have done nothing but work as hard as they can. ... This is just such a grave injustice.”

Almost all of the immigrants sponsored by Varner have lived in his house for some time. He paid their plane tickets. He helped them learn English and get driver’s licenses and jobs. He had 32 applications that were awaiting approval when the Trump administration ended the program in January.

Other plaintiffs include two more U.S. citizens who have sponsored immigrants, Sandra McAnany and Wilhen Pierre Victor, and the Haitian Bridge Alliance, a California-based organization that assists immigrants with legal advice.

“The Trump administration is trying to attack parole from all angles,” said Esther Sung, an attorney from the Justice Action Center, which filed the lawsuit with Human Rights First in federal court in Massachusetts and provided the AP a copy in advance. “The main goal, above all, is to defend humanitarian parole. These have been very, very successful processes.”

The U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Parole authority began in 1952 and has been used by Republican and Democratic presidents to admit people unable to use standard immigration routes because of time pressure or because their home country’s government lacks diplomatic relations with the U.S.

The reversal, just days later, came after nonprofit groups, including the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that suspending these programs would lead to violations of due process and further burden already backlogged immigration courts. The consequences were immediate: in Detroit, for example, the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center had to post a notice at the immigration court indicating that its help desk services were suspended, leaving many without support as they awaited hearings.

This back-and-forth reflects the ongoing tension between immigration enforcement policies and the rights of individuals in the system, particularly those who may not have the resources or knowledge to effectively advocate for themselves. Given that immigration law is incredibly complex, these programs were not just a form of assistance—they were a vital safety net to ensure that people could fully participate in their hearings, understand their legal options, and challenge deportation orders if applicable.

The case also underscores how shifts in policy can have immediate and widespread consequences for those already vulnerable in the legal process. This incident is a reminder of the critical role nonprofit organizations play in filling gaps where government resources might fall short.

Despite the loss of federal funding, staff from the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights went to a Virginia detention center to provide services the day after the stop-work order. They had spoken to about two dozen people when detention center staff escorted them out, telling them they could no longer provide those services, Amica executive director Michael Lukens said.

After the stop-work order, the organization was providing scaled-down services, but they were unsure how long they would be able to continue that with the gap left by federal funding cuts, spokesperson Tara Tidwell Cullen said last week.

Several organizations had been told that posters informing people of their services and information about legal help hotlines have been removed from detention centers.

Congress allocates $29 million a year for the four programs — the Legal Orientation Program, the Immigration Court Helpdesk, the Family Group Legal Orientation and the Counsel for Children Initiative — funding that’s spread among various groups across the country providing the services, Lukens said, adding that the programs have broad bipartisan support. The amount is the same regardless of the number of people they’re helping, and the organizations often do additional fundraising to cover their costs, he said.

Trump previously targeted these programs during his first term, but things moved more quickly this time around.

In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the funding would be pulled from the programs, but the threat of legal action by a coalition of organizations that provide the services, as well as bipartisan support from members of Congress, caused the Justice Department to reverse course.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can continue using a Seattle airport for chartered deportation flights, a federal appeals court ruled in a decision that rejected a 2019 local order that sought to counter then-President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

The agency has long used airports around the country to charter flights deporting hundreds of thousands of noncitizens considered lawfully removable from the U.S.

But in 2019, in keeping with efforts in liberal Seattle and Washington state to resist Trump’s priorities, King County Executive Dow Constantine issued an executive order expressing concern that the deportations could constitute human rights abuses. It announced that future leases at the county airport, also known as Boeing Field, would bar operators from servicing deportation flights.

The order prompted ICE to begin using an airport in Yakima — a much farther drive from ICE’s Northwest detention center in Tacoma — for the deportation flights.The U.S. sued King County in 2020, arguing that Constantine’s order discriminated against the federal government by singling it and its contractors out for unfavorable treatment, and that it violated the terms of a World War II-era contract that guarantees the federal government’s right to use the airport.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Bryan agreed, and Constantine issued a new executive order superseding his old one early last year. The new order, which was not challenged, does not purport to block deportation flights but instead prevents King County resources from aiding in the deportations beyond what federal law requires.

The new order also calls for transparency around any deportation flights. The airport now offers a conference room where the public can observe deportation flights on a video feed, and the county posts a log of deportation flights from the airport on its website.

The deportation flights resumed by May 2023, following Bryan’s decision and Constantine’s second executive order. In a ruling Friday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Bryan’s ruling.

“The Executive Order effectively grants King County the ‘power to control’ ICE’s transportation and deportation operations, forcing ICE either to stop using Boeing Field or to use government-owned planes there” — impermissibly overriding the federal government’s discretion, 9th Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress wrote for the panel.

King County said it would not further appeal the case.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision allows a raw assertion of federal power to overcome an expression of local values even absent any actual impact,” Amy Enbysk, a spokeswoman for the King County Executive’s Office, said in an emailed statement. “Although King County disagrees with the court’s decision, it will of course follow the court’s dictates.”

All immigration medical exams are conducted by a civil surgeon, a doctor designated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to perform immigration physicals and sign the required form. We offer immigration physicals to children older than 6 months and adults of all ages.

USCIS Approved Doctors in California (I-693)

Most immigration applicants will need just one visit to complete all the required exam. During the visit, we will review your vaccination record, obtain all required blood and urine tests, perform the medical examination, and provide required vaccinations. Completed form I-693 or N-648 will be ready for pick-up as soon as all the test results are processed.

https://immigration.slmedical.com

2120 W. 8th Street Suite 320
Los Angeles, CA 90057

Phone: 800.951.4440

A federal appeals court late Tuesday issued an order that again prevents Texas from arresting migrants suspected of entering the U.S. illegally, hours after the Supreme Court allowed the strict new immigration law to take effect.

The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes weeks after a panel on the same court cleared the way for Texas to enforce the law by putting a pause on a lower judge’s injunction.

But by a 2-1 order, a panel of the appeals court lifted that pause ahead of arguments before the court on Wednesday.

Texas authorities had not announced any arrests made under the law. Earlier Tuesday a divided Supreme Court had allowed Texas to begin enforcing a law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally as the legal battle over the measure played out.

The conservative majority order rejected an emergency application from the Biden administration, which says the law is a clear violation of federal authority that would cause chaos in immigration law.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had praised the order clearing the way for the law that allows any police officer in Texas to arrest migrants for illegal entry and authorizes judges to order them to leave the U.S.

The high court didn’t address whether the law is constitutional. The measure was sent to the appellate court, which made the late Tuesday ruling. It was also unclear where any migrants ordered to leave might go if the law is ultimately allowed. It calls for them to be sent to ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, even if they are not Mexican citizens.

But Mexico’s government said Tuesday it would not “under any circumstances” accept the return of any migrants to its territory from the state of Texas. Mexico is not required to accept deportations of anyone except Mexican citizens.

The Supreme Court on Monday continued to block, for now, a Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. while the legal battle it sparked over immigration authority plays out.

A one-page order signed by Justice Samuel Alito indefinitely prevents Texas from enforcing a sweeping state immigration enforcement law that had been set to take effect this month. The language of the order strongly suggests the court will take additional action, but it is unclear when.

It marks the second time Alito has extended a pause on the law, known as Senate Bill 4, which the Justice Department has argued would step on the federal government’s immigration powers. Monday’s order extending the stay came a few minutes after a 5 p.m. deadline the court had set for itself, creating momentary confusion about the measure’s status.

Opponents have called the law the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. The court battle is unfolding as immigration emerges as a key issue in the 2024 presidential race.

The office of Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.”

Arrests for illegal crossings along the southern border hit record highs in December but fell by half in January, a shift attributed to seasonal declines and heightened enforcement by the U.S. and its allies. The federal government has not yet released numbers for February.

The Biden administration sued to strike down the Texas measure in January, arguing it’s a clear violation of federal authority on immigration that would hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. Critics have also said the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling.

A federal judge in Texas struck down the law in late February, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly stayed that ruling, leading the federal government to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in 2012 struck down key parts of an Arizona law that would have allowed police to arrest people for federal immigration violations, often referred to by opponents as the “show me your papers” bill. The divided high court found then that the impasse in Washington over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

The battle over the Texas immigration law is one of multiple legal disputes between Texas officials and the Biden administration over how far the state can go to patrol the Texas-Mexico border and prevent illegal border crossings.

Several Republican governors have backed Gov. Greg Abbott’s efforts, saying the federal government is not doing enough to enforce existing immigration laws.

A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire that Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border, while a lawsuit over the wire continues.

The justices, by a 5-4 vote, granted an emergency appeal from the Biden administration, which has been in an escalating standoff at the border with Texas and had objected to an appellate ruling in favor of the state.

The concertina wire along roughly 30 miles of the Rio Grande near the border city of Eagle Pass is part of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's broader fight with the administration over immigration enforcement.

Abbott has also authorized installing floating barriers in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass and allowed troopers to arrest and jail thousands of migrants on trespassing charges. The administration is also challenging those actions in federal court.

A federal appeals court last month forced federal agents to stop cutting the concertina wire. Large numbers of migrants have crossed at Eagle Pass in recent months.

In court papers, the administration said the wire impedes Border Patrol agents from reaching migrants as they cross the river and that, in any case, federal immigration law trumps Texas’ own efforts to stem the flow of migrants into the country.

Texas officials have argued that federal agents cut the wire to help groups crossing illegally through the river before taking them in for processing.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor sided with the administration. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas voted with Texas.

None of the justices provided an explanation for their vote.