A family member detained by ICE: finding them, bond and habeas corpusImmigration Detention, Bond Hearings and Habeas Corpus

Wang Law Firm, LLC · David Wang, Managing Attorney · Attorney-reviewed · Updated October 2026

Immigration detention is civil detention, not criminal custody: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), detains people so that they will appear in removal proceedings, or to carry out an existing removal order. Whether and how a detained person can get out depends above all on which provision of law they are detained under: "discretionary detention" under section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows a request for bond; "mandatory detention" under section 236(c) and detention of "applicants for admission" under section 235(b) generally cannot be addressed by an immigration judge granting bond, and other routes must be found.

Since 2025 this area has changed dramatically: DHS and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have placed large numbers of people who entered without inspection years ago and have lived in the United States ever since into mandatory detention under section 235(b)(2)(A), with no bond hearing; federal courts across the country have received a flood of habeas corpus petitions, the circuit courts of appeals are split, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in October 2026 to hear the issue. Below we follow the sequence "find the person — identify the detention authority — request bond — what to do if bond is not available — posting bond and after release," with recent changes listed separately and marked with the date they were verified.

Step one: find the person and get the basic facts

Search the Online Detainee Locator

ICE's Online Detainee Locator System (ODLS) can find people 18 or older who are currently in ICE detention. There are two ways to search:

• A-number + country of birth: the most accurate. The A-number (Alien Registration Number) is the file number DHS assigns to each noncitizen, usually 9 digits (it may begin with a 0), printed on the Notice to Appear, green card, work permit, USCIS receipts and ICE documents.
• Name + country of birth: the name must match the spelling in the detention record exactly. For Chinese names, for example, the pinyin spelling, the order of surname and given name, and whether a compound surname is written as one word can all cause a search to fail, so try several spellings.

When the result shows "In custody," it lists the detention facility and its contact information. A person who was just arrested may not appear in the system for some time, and may be transferred to a facility in another state in the meantime. If you cannot find the person, you can contact the local ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) field office. People under 18 do not appear in the system.

Other information to check at the same time

• Whether there is already an immigration court case: enter the A-number in EOIR's Automated Case Information system to see the next hearing date, the court address and the judge, and whether a removal order has already been entered.
• Whether there is already a removal order or a prior removal: if the person was previously ordered removed (including an in absentia order) or was removed through expedited removal, ICE may carry out the removal directly, with no new court proceeding, which makes the situation more urgent. See After a removal order and Expedited removal.
• Where and how the arrest happened: where, by which agency, whether there are criminal charges, and whether the person was asked to sign documents. These affect the detention authority and also whether a habeas corpus petition may be possible later.

Contacting the detention center, visits and communication

• Each detention facility has its own visiting hours, scheduling procedures, dress code and ID requirements. Call ahead or check the facility's page on the ICE website before going, and bring a government-issued photo ID. Whether family members without lawful status should visit in person is something to discuss with an attorney first.
• Detained people can usually make phone calls (mostly through a paid phone account) and receive mail, and some facilities offer video visits. Attorney visits and attorney calls are generally arranged separately.
• You can deposit money into the detained person's facility account for phone calls and personal items; the method depends on the facility's rules.
• Be aware that calls may be recorded (except confidential calls with an attorney, subject to the facility's rules). Do not discuss case details or facts that could hurt the person over the phone.

Step two: identify the legal authority for detention

This is the most important step in any detention case. The comparison below shows the general rules; each case depends on its specific facts and the latest decisions in the relevant circuit.

ICE usually issues documents stating the detention authority when it detains someone, and whether the Notice to Appear (NTA) checks "arriving alien" or "present without admission or parole" is also a clue. Give all of these documents to your attorney.

Bond: set by ICE, and immigration judge bond hearings

ICE's initial custody determination

For people detained under 236(a), ICE first makes an initial custody determination: no bond, a bond amount, or release on other conditions (for example conditional parole, release on supervision, or enrollment in alternatives to detention). By law, bond under 236(a) is at least $1,500 (INA 236(a)(2)(A)); the actual amount is decided case by case by ICE or the judge, there is no maximum, and in recent years many bonds have been far above the statutory minimum.

Asking an immigration judge for a bond redetermination

If ICE denies bond or sets it too high, the detained person can ask an immigration judge for a bond redetermination (8 CFR 1236.1(d), 1003.19). Key points:

• The bond hearing is a separate proceeding from the removal case itself, with its own record. Statements made and materials submitted at the bond hearing may be used in the main case, so preparation should be consistent and truthful.
• Bond hearings are generally scheduled fairly quickly and are often held by video. An attorney can submit a written request and an evidence packet.
• After the first bond decision, a later request must show that circumstances have changed materially (8 CFR 1003.19(e)). The evidence should therefore be fully prepared the first time.
• If ICE originally denied bond, or set bond at or above a certain amount, and the judge lowers or grants bond, DHS can trigger an automatic stay by filing Form EOIR-43, so that the judge's bond decision does not take effect for the time being (8 CFR 1003.19(i)(2)). In that situation an appeal to the BIA or a habeas corpus petition in federal court may need to be considered.
• Either side can appeal the judge's bond decision to the BIA (Form EOIR-26; see Form EOIR-26 guide). A bond appeal does not stop the main case from moving forward.

What the judge considers: danger and flight risk

Under BIA precedent, in a 236(a) bond proceeding the detained person generally must show that they are not a danger to persons or property and not a flight risk (Matter of Adeniji, 1999; Matter of Urena, 2009, held that danger should be decided first and that a person who is a danger should not be released on bond). (Some circuits, relying on constitutional due process, have shifted the burden of proof to the government; follow local precedent.) Matter of Guerra (2006) lists factors the judge may consider, including:

• whether the person has a fixed address and how long they have lived in the United States;
• family ties in the United States, especially U.S. citizen or green card holder relatives;
• employment history and stable income;
• whether the person has appeared in court as required and complied with immigration or criminal proceedings in the past;
• criminal record, including its seriousness, how recent it is, and any evidence of rehabilitation;
• immigration violations and manner of entry;
• whether relief from removal may be available (for example asylum, cancellation of removal, or adjustment of status through a relative) — when realistic relief exists, the incentive to flee is usually lower.

Judges have broad discretion, and the same facts can produce different results in different courts. In 2025, in precedents such as Matter of Akhmedov and Matter of Dobrotvorskii, the BIA reversed bond grants by immigration judges, emphasizing factors such as failure to report a change of address on time and the circumstances of the sponsor, which shows that review has become noticeably stricter in recent years. Common evidence includes:

• the sponsor's (usually a U.S. citizen or green card holder relative's) proof of identity, proof of address and letter of support;
• proof of a fixed address such as a lease, property records or utility bills;
• proof of family relationships (birth and marriage certificates) and the relatives' status documents;
• tax records, proof of employment, and letters of support from community and religious organizations;
• applications for relief already filed or that can be filed (for example a Form I-589 asylum application) and their basis;
• if there is a criminal record: official court documents showing the final disposition, and proof of completing probation or classes;
• proof of humanitarian factors such as health conditions or caring for family members.

Mandatory detention: INA 236(c) and the Laken Riley Act

INA 236(c) requires ICE to detain several categories of people for specified criminal or security reasons, and an immigration judge cannot set bond during that time. Traditionally these include: people inadmissible because of offenses listed in INA 212(a)(2); people deportable for aggravated felonies, multiple crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled substance offenses, firearms offenses and similar charges; and people involved in terrorist activity. In Demore v. Kim (2003) the Supreme Court upheld mandatory detention during removal proceedings, and in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018) it held that the statutory text itself does not contain an implicit six-month limit; whether prolonged detention violates constitutional due process is still being reviewed case by case by courts around the country.

The Laken Riley Act (Pub. L. 119-1) was signed and took effect on January 29, 2025. It added subparagraph (E) to 236(c)(1), expanding mandatory detention. People in the new category must meet both of these conditions:

1. they are inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(A) (present without admission or parole), 212(a)(6)(C) (fraud or misrepresentation) or 212(a)(7) (no valid entry documents); and
2. they have been charged with, arrested for or convicted of, or admit having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of, burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person.

What makes this provision unusual is that an arrest or charge alone can trigger it — no conviction is required, and ICE may already have detained someone on that basis even if the criminal case is later dismissed. The meaning of these offenses is determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred. The Act also allows states, under certain conditions, to sue over federal decisions such as the release of noncitizens.

Joseph hearing: arguing that mandatory detention does not apply

If the detained person believes ICE wrongly placed them under 236(c) (for example, the criminal charge does not actually fall into a listed category, or the final court judgment does not amount to that type of offense), they can ask an immigration judge for a Joseph hearing (Matter of Joseph, 1999). If the judge finds that mandatory detention does not apply, an ordinary bond review follows. Analyzing the immigration consequences of criminal charges is highly specialized; see Criminal records and immigration consequences.

INA 235(b) vs. 236(a): Yajure Hurtado and the litigation that followed

This is the biggest immigration detention dispute of 2025–2026, and it directly determines whether large numbers of people who entered without inspection, have lived in the U.S. for years and have no criminal record can get a bond hearing. The status below is verified as of October 11, 2026; things are changing quickly, so check the latest developments.

The government's position and BIA precedent

• Traditional practice: for many years, people who entered without inspection and were arrested in the interior were generally handled under 236(a) and could request a bond hearing; 235(b)(2)(A) applied mainly to people stopped at a port of entry or the border.
• July 2025: ICE issued internal guidance taking the position that everyone present without inspection is an "applicant for admission" who must be detained under 235(b)(2)(A), no matter how long they have been in the U.S.
• Matter of Q. Li (BIA 2025, 29 I&N Dec. 66): the BIA held that a person detained without a warrant upon arrival in the United States (whether or not at a port of entry) and later released on parole is detained under 235(b) and cannot receive bond from an immigration judge; a person re-detained after parole is terminated is still treated under 235(b).
• Matter of Yajure Hurtado (BIA 2025, 29 I&N Dec. 216, September 2025): the BIA held that immigration judges have no authority to grant bond to people present without inspection, no matter how long they have lived in the United States. This is a precedent that immigration judges must follow.

How the federal courts have responded

• A flood of habeas petitions: since the second half of 2025, federal district courts across the country have received thousands of habeas corpus petitions, and a substantial number of judges have held that these people should be treated under 236(a), ordering the government to hold bond hearings or release them outright. But results vary from place to place.
• Class action Maldonado Bautista v. DHS (C.D. Cal.): the district court certified a nationwide class in 2025 and on December 18, 2025 entered a declaratory judgment that class members should be treated under 236(a); on February 18, 2026 it also vacated Yajure Hurtado. The Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay on March 6, 2026, and in late March granted the government a stay of these rulings pending appeal. According to materials published by the parties, the nationwide class judgment and the vacatur of Yajure Hurtado are currently not in effect, and the case still has effect only for detainees in the Central District of California; the appeal is ongoing.
• Other regional class actions: for example Guerrero-Orellana v. Moniz in New England (the First Circuit affirmed a judgment favorable to the class in August 2026) and Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock in Washington State (affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in July 2026). Whether someone is a class member and can rely on a ruling depends on the place of detention and the class definition, and must be confirmed case by case.

The circuit split

According to CLINIC's summary as of September 2026, most circuits (including the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, though the specific rulings and their scope differ from circuit to circuit) have held that long-term residents who entered without inspection and are arrested in the interior should be treated under 236(a) and can get a bond hearing; the Fifth Circuit (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, February 6, 2026, covering Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) and the Eighth Circuit (Avila v. Bondi, March 25, 2026) have sided with the government, holding that mandatory detention under 235(b)(2)(A) applies. Another Fifth Circuit case (Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega) concerns whether prolonged detention violates due process; the panel decision was vacated for rehearing en banc, the case was argued in September 2026, and a decision is pending. Illinois is in the Seventh Circuit, which held on July 30, 2026 in Cirrus Rojas v. Olson that 236(a) applies to these people.

The Supreme Court

On October 1, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (No. 26-104). The case comes from the Second Circuit, which held that the noncitizen was governed by 236(a) and entitled to a bond hearing; the government sought review. The question before the Supreme Court is whether a noncitizen who entered without inspection and was later arrested in the interior must be detained under 235(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing. As of the date this page was verified, no oral argument date has been announced; until the Supreme Court decides, each circuit's existing rulings continue to apply.

What this means for you

• The state where the person is held directly affects whether a bond hearing is available and which procedure applies. ICE may transfer people to other states, and the transfer itself can affect which circuit's rulings apply.
• Even where the circuit's rulings are favorable, whether the immigration court will simply hold a bond hearing in practice, or will still refuse based on Yajure Hurtado so that a federal habeas petition is needed, varies by location and must be assessed by an attorney based on the circumstances at the time.
• A person who is a member of a class action should expressly assert class membership when requesting bond and submit the relevant rulings.

Habeas corpus

A habeas corpus petition is a lawsuit filed in federal district court (not immigration court) asking the court to review whether the government's detention of a person is lawful (28 U.S.C. 2241). In immigration detention, common grounds include:

• the person was wrongly placed in 235(b) or 236(c) mandatory detention and should receive a bond hearing;
• detention has lasted too long without individualized review, in violation of constitutional due process;
• there is a final order of removal, but removal is not possible in the reasonably foreseeable future and detention has exceeded a reasonable period (Zadvydas v. Davis, 2001, generally treats six months as presumptively reasonable);
• procedural problems such as bond being granted but blocked by a DHS automatic stay.

Points to keep in mind:

• A habeas petition should generally be filed in the federal district court where the person is currently detained, naming the head of the detention facility as respondent. The proper court may differ before and after a transfer, so timing is critical.
• Habeas review addresses whether the detention is lawful; it generally cannot review whether the person should be removed. Challenges to the removal order itself go through other procedures (appeal, motions, petition for review in a federal court of appeals).
• The outcome depends on the precedent in that circuit. The court can order a bond hearing, order release or deny the petition.

Alternatives to detention and release on supervision

ICE can decline to detain, or release with conditions; these are collectively called Alternatives to Detention (ATD). Common forms include regular check-ins at an ICE office, check-ins by phone or smartphone app (such as facial-recognition check-ins), ankle monitors and home visits. When a judge sets bond, ICE may also add ATD conditions separately. People with a final order of removal who are released are usually released under an Order of Supervision (I-220B); see After a removal order.

Whatever the form, strictly complying with every condition is essential: arriving late, missing a check-in or moving without reporting it can lead to re-detention or forfeiture of the bond. When moving, you must also file Form EOIR-33 with the immigration court within 5 days to update your address (Form EOIR-33 guide), and report separately to ICE as it requires.

How to post bond

• Who can be the obligor: U.S. citizens, green card holders, and law firms and nonprofit organizations can post a delivery bond. The obligor must provide proof of identity (such as a passport or green card).
• How to pay: ICE handles bonds through its online CeBONDS system, and payment is generally by bank transfer (ACH or Fedwire); in-person payment is arranged case by case by local ICE offices, so contact them in advance. Those without a bank account can get help from an authorized immigration bond surety company or a community organization; surety companies charge fees and have their own contract terms.
• Form I-352 bond agreement: this is the contract between the obligor and ICE, setting out all of the conditions. Read it carefully before signing.
• The obligor's duties: when ICE sends a notice to deliver (I-340), the obligor must make sure the person appears on the specified date and time. Even arriving late may be treated as a breach, and the bond forfeited (I-323 notice of breach).
• Refund: the bond is returned after ICE issues an I-391 notice of cancellation. Typical situations include the person complying with all conditions until the case ends (for example being granted relief, departing within the voluntary departure period and submitting proof, or being taken back into ICE custody). Keep the receipt and all notices safe, and update the obligor's address promptly after moving.

Common misconceptions

• "Once the bond is paid, it's over." Release only means the case continues on the non-detained docket. Removal proceedings go on, and the person must appear at every hearing; otherwise they may be ordered removed in absentia, and the bond will also be forfeited.
• "Signing the papers will get them out faster." ICE sometimes asks detained people to sign documents agreeing to voluntary departure, waiving a hearing or agreeing to removal. Signing can lead directly to removal and to being barred from returning for many years. Do not sign documents you do not understand.
• "No criminal record means bond is guaranteed." Since 2025, many people with no criminal record have been denied a bond hearing because they were placed under 235(b)(2)(A); even with a hearing, the judge weighs flight risk as a whole.
• "Habeas corpus will get the case dismissed." Habeas mainly addresses whether the detention is lawful; it is not the same as winning the removal case.

How we can help

• Quickly confirm the detained person's location, the detention authority and whether there is an existing removal order, and obtain the immigration court record and DHS file (for example through FOIA).
• Assess whether a bond redetermination or Joseph hearing can be requested, prepare the sponsor's materials and the evidence packet, and appear in court.
• Assess whether a habeas corpus petition is viable in light of the latest precedent in the relevant circuit, and work with attorneys admitted to practice in federal court to pursue it.
• At the same time, assess the relief available in the main case (such as asylum, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status or voluntary departure), so that a focus on bond does not cause relief deadlines to be missed.
• Guide family members through posting bond and understanding the obligor's duties, and after release help with check-in and address-update requirements.

Whether bond or release can be obtained depends on the law, the precedent in the relevant court and the facts of the case; we cannot promise any result.

Frequently asked questions

Official sources

• ICE Online Detainee Locator System
• ICE detention facility list and visitation information
• ICE bonds (CeBONDS) information
• EOIR Automated Case Information
• 8 U.S.C. 1226 (INA 236, including 236(c)(1)(E) added by the Laken Riley Act)
• 8 CFR Part 1236 (bond redetermination)
• EOIR Policy Manual
• BIA and Attorney General precedent decisions (including Matter of Yajure Hurtado and Matter of Q. Li)
• Supreme Court docket: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104
• CLINIC: summary of circuit decisions on 235(b)(2)(A) mandatory detention

Related reading

• What to do if you receive a Notice to Appear (NTA)
• Expedited removal and credible fear interviews
• Criminal records and immigration consequences
• Relief in removal proceedings
• After a removal order: ICE check-ins, stays of removal and reentry

Related cases: Immigration litigation tracker, Trump v. CASA, Loper Bright

This page is general information, not legal advice. Immigration court procedures and policies change quickly, and outcomes depend on the specific facts. If you have received a Notice to Appear or a family member has been detained, consult an attorney as soon as possible.