U.S. Immigration Court Reinstates Use of “Alien” for Non-Citizens, Stating Term Is Neither Pejorative Nor Insulting

U.S. Immigration Court (Photo: EOIR)

The U.S. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has announced the cancellation of Policy Memorandum (PM) 21-27, which had previously mandated the use of alternative terminology such as “noncitizen” instead of the statutory term “alien.” The new directive, PM 25-07, effective January 29, 2025, rescinds the earlier policy, asserting that the term “alien” is not pejorative and remains legally accurate under U.S. immigration law.

EOIR will now revert to using the term “alien” in its official communications and legal documents, aligning with statutory language and long-standing legal practice. Employees are no longer required to use alternative terms like “noncitizen,” though they may do so if they choose, provided it does not cause confusion or legal errors. The directive also reassures employees that no one will face disciplinary action for past violations of the now-canceled policy.

PM 21-27, issued on July 23, 2021, required EOIR to avoid using the term “alien” in favor of “noncitizen” and other alternatives, except when quoting statutes, regulations, or legal documents. This policy was based on two Executive Orders (EOs) that have since been revoked. PM 21-27 was largely an outlier within the Department of Justice (DOJ), as other DOJ components, such as the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, continued to use the term “alien” in legal documents, including indictments and complaints. Additionally, federal courts and pattern jury instructions retained the term, further highlighting the inconsistency created by PM 21-27.

The new memo states, “The word ‘alien’ is not a pejorative nor an insult. I certainly did not consider it an insult to be referred to as an alien in my deportation proceedings.” This quote, attributed to Judge Carlos Bea of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, underscores the judicial view that the term is neutral and legally appropriate.

The memo also highlights: “Our federal immigration statutes concern themselves with aliens. This word ‘alien’ is not a pejorative nor an insult… ‘Alien’ is a statutory word defining a specific class of individuals. And when used in its statutory context, it admits of its statutory definition, not those definitions with negative connotations that can be plucked at will from the dictionary.” This reinforces the argument that the term is essential for clarity in immigration law.

The memo further cites Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit, who wrote: “There’s no need to be offended by the word ‘alien.’ It’s a centuries-old legal term found in countless judicial decisions… It’s used in numerous acts of Congress—including the ones that allowed me to become an American.” Judge Ho, a naturalized U.S. citizen, shared his personal experience, noting that he was once an “alien” and that the term played a crucial role in his path to citizenship.

The memo firmly states: “EOIR is not an Orwellian language police. It also does not possess authority to rewrite statutes when it disagrees with them.” This reflects the agency’s stance that its role is to adhere to statutory language, not to impose alternative terminology.

The memo argues that PM 21-27 caused unnecessary confusion by attempting to police language while allowing exceptions for statutory quotations. This created a situation where the same term was deemed inappropriate in some contexts but acceptable in others, undermining the policy’s coherence.

The memo concludes by emphasizing that the rescission of PM 21-27 is intended to ensure legal accuracy and consistency across immigration proceedings. The cancellation of PM 21-27 marks a return to traditional legal terminology in U.S. immigration courts.