immigration detention Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. https://ariasvilla.com/tag/immigration-detention/ Miami Immigration Law Attorney Wed, 13 May 2026 16:55:55 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 https://ariasvilla.com/wp-content/uploads/cropped-cropped-Arias-Villa-Law-Logo-32x32.webp immigration detention Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. https://ariasvilla.com/tag/immigration-detention/ 32 32 Federal Appeals Courts Push Back on Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention Without Bond Hearings https://ariasvilla.com/federal-appeals-courts-push-back-on-expanded-mandatory-immigration-detention-without-bond-hearings/ https://ariasvilla.com/federal-appeals-courts-push-back-on-expanded-mandatory-immigration-detention-without-bond-hearings/#respond Wed, 13 May 2026 16:55:55 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=12110 The post Federal Appeals Courts Push Back on Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention Without Bond Hearings appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

Another Federal Appeals Court Rejects Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention Without Bond Hearings

A new federal appeals court decision has added another important development to the national debate over immigration detention, bond hearings, and due process.

On May 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a published decision in Lopez-Campos, et al. v. Raycraft, et al. The court affirmed several district court decisions granting habeas petitions to detained noncitizens who argued that the government had unlawfully denied them access to bond hearings. The petitioners were detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), but they argued that their detention should instead be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which can allow release on bond or conditional parole while removal proceedings are pending.

This decision is especially important because the Sixth Circuit joined the Second Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit in rejecting the government’s broader interpretation of mandatory detention. It was the third federal appeals court decision rejecting the government’s position that certain noncitizens already living inside the United States may be held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without access to an individualized bond hearing.

Why This Decision Matters

Immigration detention can have serious consequences for families. A person may be separated from children, spouses, work, medical care, and community support while their immigration case continues.

That is why the legal authority used to detain a person matters. Some detention laws are mandatory. Other detention laws allow a person to ask for bond. A bond hearing does not guarantee release, but it gives the person an opportunity to present evidence about family ties, community ties, work history, lack of danger, and likelihood of appearing at future hearings.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), certain applicants for admission must be detained for removal proceedings if an examining immigration officer determines they are not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the government may arrest and detain a noncitizen pending a decision on removal, but that provision also permits release on bond or conditional parole, except where mandatory detention rules apply. The Sixth Circuit described § 1226 as the detention framework for many noncitizens already inside the United States while their removal proceedings are pending.

The key question in these cases is whether a person who entered without inspection and has already been living inside the United States can be treated as someone still “seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A), or whether that person falls under § 1226 and may request bond.

How a Habeas-Corpus Petition Can Challenge Unlawful Immigration Detention

The Government’s Position Came From a 2025 BIA Decision

The government’s position was strengthened by a September 5, 2025 decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Yajure Hurtado. In that precedential decision, the BIA held that immigration judges lack authority to hear bond requests or grant bond to people who are present in the United States without admission.

The BIA reasoned that people present in the United States without admission are applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and must be detained for the duration of their removal proceedings.

That interpretation represented a major shift from what several federal courts described as a long-standing practice of allowing many people in this situation to seek bond under § 1226(a). The Eleventh Circuit noted that, for nearly thirty years, the answer had generally been that unadmitted noncitizens found inside the United States were eligible for bond while going through immigration proceedings, but that DHS took a different view in 2025.

What the Sixth Circuit Decided

In Lopez-Campos, the Sixth Circuit rejected the government’s argument.

The court explained that U.S. immigration law authorizes detention under different statutory frameworks. It noted that § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory detention scheme applies to certain noncitizens who seek admission into the country, while § 1226 applies to other noncitizens pending a decision on removability, with exceptions.

The Sixth Circuit stated that hundreds of district courts and five other federal circuits had already addressed this statutory question. It then expressly joined the Second and Eleventh Circuits in holding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to noncitizens like the petitioners in that case.

The petitioners in the Sixth Circuit case were people who had lived in the United States for years. Many were parents of U.S. citizen children. They were arrested by immigration authorities inside the United States and were denied bond because immigration judges concluded they lacked authority to grant bond under the BIA’s interpretation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ rulings in favor of the petitioners.

The Eleventh Circuit Decision Matters Deeply for Florida

For families in Florida, the Eleventh Circuit decision is especially important because the Eleventh Circuit covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

On May 6, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami. The court framed the issue clearly: whether unadmitted noncitizens found in the interior of the United States are eligible for bond while going through immigration proceedings.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the government’s reinterpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A). It held that the statute’s no-bond detention rule is limited to applicants for admission who are “seeking admission,” and that the petitioners in that case were not seeking lawful entry when they were detained after traffic stops.

This does not mean every detained person in Florida will be released. But it may be very important for certain people detained in Florida who were denied bond because the immigration court believed it had no authority to consider bond.

The Second Circuit Reached a Similar Result

The Second Circuit also rejected the government’s position in Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden. In that case, the court held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not apply to a noncitizen who was already present in the United States after entering without inspection and who was not apprehended while seeking admission. The court concluded that detention was governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A).

The Second Circuit also made an important clarification: its decision did not disturb mandatory detention for people apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter, and it did not disturb mandatory detention under § 1226(c) for certain criminal or terrorism-related grounds. Instead, the ruling concerned people already present inside the United States who may be eligible for bond under § 1226(a).

What This Decision Does Not Mean

This decision does not give anyone legal status. It does not cancel removal proceedings. It does not mean that every detained person must be released. It does not guarantee bond.

A bond hearing is an opportunity to ask for release while the immigration case continues. At that hearing, the person may need to show that they are not a danger to the community and that they are likely to appear for future immigration court hearings.

The Sixth Circuit also recognized that not all federal appeals courts agree on this issue. It noted that other circuits have addressed the same statutory question and reached different conclusions. Because of that disagreement, this area of law may continue to develop.

Why Families Should Pay Attention

If someone you love is detained by immigration authorities, the legal basis for detention should be reviewed carefully.

This decision may matter if the person has been living inside the United States, was detained by ICE or immigration authorities away from the border, was denied bond because the immigration judge said there was no authority to grant bond, or was treated as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

However, every case is different. Some people may still be subject to mandatory detention under other provisions, including certain criminal-related detention provisions. The Laken Riley Act also amended § 1226 in 2025 to add mandatory detention language for certain inadmissible noncitizens charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admitting acts related to specified offenses.

For this reason, families should not assume that one court decision automatically applies to every detained person. The facts, location of detention, immigration history, criminal history, prior orders, pending relief, and federal circuit all matter.

Read More

Practical Steps for Families

If a loved one is detained, families should begin gathering documents immediately. Helpful documents may include:

  • proof of identity,
  • immigration court paperwork,
  • the Notice to Appear,
  • custody documents,
  • prior immigration decisions,
  • proof of residence,
  • marriage certificates,
  • children’s birth certificates,
  • medical records,
  • employment records,
  • tax records where available,
  • letters of support,
  • proof of community ties, and
  • evidence showing that the person is not a danger and is likely to attend future hearings.

These documents can be important in a bond request. They can also help an attorney determine whether habeas relief, a renewed bond request, or another legal step may be appropriate.

Final Thoughts

This decision is important because it reminds us that immigration detention is not only a matter of enforcement. It is also a matter of statutory limits, due process, and individualized review.

The Sixth Circuit did not say that immigration detention is unlawful in every case. It did not order a blanket release of detained immigrants. But it did reject the government’s attempt to apply § 1225(b)(2)(A) to certain noncitizens already living inside the United States in a way that would deny them access to bond hearings.

For families, this distinction can be very meaningful. A bond hearing may be the first opportunity to explain who the person is, how long they have lived here, whether they have family and community support, and why they should be allowed to continue their immigration case outside detention.

If you or a loved one is facing immigration detention or removal proceedings, it is important to speak with an immigration attorney as soon as possible.

For immigration guidance, you may contact my office at 305-671-0018.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Contact us today with your immigration questions.

With a passion for immigration law and a commitment to client advocacy, Immigration Law Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. provides the experienced legal representation for U.S. citizenship, employment and business visas, specialized on investor visas, green card petitions, deportation defense, and more. Schedule a consultation with the attorney today to discuss your immigration needs.

MIAMI OFFICE:
ARIAS VILLA, PLLC
Address: 9100 S Dadeland Blvd, #510
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 671-0018
Mobile: (305) 233-3110
Email: martha@ariasvilla.com

OFFICE HOURS:
Monday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Tuesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Wednesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Thursday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Friday: 9 AM – 3 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed

Martha L. Arias, Esq. - Miami Immigration Law Attorney

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Immigration Law Attorney with Decades of Experience

For professional and dedicated immigration law services in Miami, reach out to our immigration attorney Martha Arias and her team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW
BOOK AN APPOINTMENT
CONTACT US

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes quickly, and the outcome of any case depends on the facts, the law, the court, the person’s immigration history, and the jurisdiction where the case is pending.

The post Federal Appeals Courts Push Back on Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention Without Bond Hearings appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/federal-appeals-courts-push-back-on-expanded-mandatory-immigration-detention-without-bond-hearings/feed/ 0 Voluntary Departure vs. Deportation https://ariasvilla.com/voluntary-departure-vs-deportation/ https://ariasvilla.com/voluntary-departure-vs-deportation/#respond Mon, 11 May 2026 17:53:32 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=12101 The post Voluntary Departure vs. Deportation appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

Voluntary Departure vs. Deportation: What Immigrants Should Understand Before Making a Decision

This morning, I joined La Voz de la Mañana on VOZ by Univision TV to discuss a very important and sensitive immigration topic: the difference between voluntary departure and a formal deportation order.

Many immigrants are facing very difficult decisions today. Some people are detained while their asylum cases or immigration matters are still pending. Others are worried about the cost of defending their cases, the emotional pressure of detention, and the uncertainty of what may happen next. In those moments, a person may feel pressured to choose the fastest option available, but immigration decisions should never be made without understanding the long-term consequences.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

What Is Voluntary Departure?

Voluntary departure is a legal option that may allow a person to leave the United States without having a formal removal order on their immigration record. According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, voluntary departure may allow a person to leave in a way that can avoid some of the consequences of a removal order, although the person must still comply with the terms set by the immigration judge.

This does not mean voluntary departure is always the right answer. It must be reviewed carefully, because each person’s immigration history is different. A person may still have other grounds of inadmissibility, prior unlawful presence, prior entries, fraud or misrepresentation concerns, or other immigration issues that must be addressed before trying to return to the United States.

Know your rights if I.C.E. stops you in public.

How Is Deportation Different?

A deportation or removal order may carry serious consequences. Depending on the type of removal and the person’s immigration history, a person may face a 5-year, 10-year, or 20-year inadmissibility period. In some cases, including certain aggravated felony situations or repeated immigration violations, the person may need special permission before seeking lawful return to the United States.

That is why I explained during the interview that it is important to understand the difference between leaving under voluntary departure and leaving after a formal deportation order. The words may sound similar to many families, but legally they are not the same.

Can Someone Return After Leaving the United States?

Sometimes, a person may be able to seek lawful return after leaving the United States, but the answer depends on the person’s specific record. Prior unlawful presence, a prior removal order, an expedited removal, fraud or misrepresentation concerns, criminal history, or other inadmissibility issues may change the legal options available.

If a person has a prior removal, unlawful presence, or another ground of inadmissibility, the case must be reviewed carefully. USCIS explains that unlawful presence can create bars to admission, and certain people may need a waiver before they can return lawfully.

For example, during the interview, a viewer asked about a husband who was deported in 2020 with a five-year bar. In a situation like that, the legal analysis must begin with the reason for the deportation. Was it an expedited removal at the border? Was there a prior court order? Was there unlawful presence? Is there a U.S. citizen spouse petition? Are there other inadmissibility issues?

These facts matter. A case cannot be answered safely with one general statement.

Pending Asylum, Work Permits, and Detention Concerns

Another viewer asked “…whether a person with a pending residence application and work permit could still have problems if stopped by immigration agents“.

My answer was that yes, it is possible. Today, many people with pending asylum cases or work authorization may still face detention depending on their immigration history, current status, and enforcement priorities. Having a pending application or work permit does not always protect someone from immigration enforcement.

This is why immigrants should keep copies of important documents, avoid unnecessary risks, and speak with an immigration attorney before making major decisions.

Pregnant Women in Detention

One of the most concerning questions came from a viewer whose pregnant wife was detained while her asylum case was pending.

Every case must be reviewed with care, especially when there are pregnancy-related, medical, or humanitarian concerns. Families should document the pregnancy, medical condition, detention circumstances, and any requests for release, parole, bond, or other available relief. Voluntary departure may be considered in some cases, but it should not be chosen without understanding whether legal defenses or humanitarian options may still exist.

Do Immigrants Need to Report a Change of Address?

Yes. This is very important.

USCIS states that most noncitizens in the United States must report a change of address within 10 days of moving, and USCIS provides Form AR-11 and online address change options for this purpose.

Many people are afraid to update their address, but failing to do so may create problems. Missing immigration notices can lead to serious consequences, including missed appointments, missed court notices, or decisions being made without the person’s knowledge.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between voluntary departure and deportation?

Voluntary departure may allow a person to leave the United States without a formal removal order. Deportation, or removal, creates a formal order and may carry serious future immigration penalties. The best option depends on the person’s immigration history, pending applications, and possible inadmissibility issues.

Can someone return to the United States after voluntary departure?

A person may be able to return after voluntary departure, but only if they qualify for a visa or immigration benefit and resolve any grounds of inadmissibility. Prior unlawful presence, fraud, criminal issues, or previous immigration violations may still affect the case.

Can someone return after being deported?

Some people may return after a deportation, but they may need to wait for a required period, obtain permission to reapply, or seek a waiver depending on the facts. A prior deportation must be carefully reviewed before applying for a new visa or immigration benefit.

Can a person with pending asylum still be detained?

Yes. A pending asylum case or work permit does not always prevent immigration detention. The risk depends on the person’s immigration history, manner of entry, prior orders, criminal history if any, and current enforcement practices.

Do immigrants have to file Form AR-11 after moving?

In most cases, yes. USCIS states that most noncitizens must report a change of address within 10 days of moving. This may be done online or by using Form AR-11. Failing to update an address may cause missed notices and legal problems.

Immigration law is not only about forms and deadlines. It is about people, families, fear, hope, and the future. When a person is detained, when a family is separated, or when someone is deciding whether to leave the United States, every detail matters.

Before accepting voluntary departure, before abandoning an asylum case, before trying to return after deportation, or before ignoring a change-of-address requirement, please seek guidance based on your own facts.

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

JORGE CANCINO:
Mientras aumentan los casos de inmigrantes que abandonan sus solicitudes de asilo para evitar permanecer detenidos durante meses, también crece la confusión sobre quiénes pueden salir voluntariamente sin una orden formal y qué consecuencias legales enfrentan después.

Para aclararlo, saludamos a la abogada de inmigración, Martha Arias Villa, quien nos visita en el estudio esta mañana de lunes. Abogada, muchas gracias por estar en La Voz de la Mañana.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Muchas gracias por invitarme. Buenos días a ustedes y a toda su audiencia.

JORGE CANCINO:
Este reporte habla de más de 80,000 salidas voluntarias de inmigrantes por miedo a permanecer detenidos durante meses o años. ¿Qué está pasando realmente en los centros de detención?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
En los centros de detención está pasando lo que usted acaba de decir. Las personas están cansadas, no solamente de estar detenidas, sino también de cubrir los costos económicos de una defensa, y están optando por salir voluntariamente y pedirle esa salida al juez.

JORGE CANCINO:
Ahora, es importante aclararle a la audiencia cuál es la diferencia entre una orden de salida voluntaria otorgada por un juez y las personas que decidieron salir usando CBP Home, esta aplicación, u otros programas de autodeportación.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Muchas personas que usan CBP Home son personas que están aquí en los Estados Unidos ilegalmente, pero que nunca han tenido una corte de inmigración. Entonces, obviamente, simplemente usan CBP Home para poder salir.

La salida voluntaria se pide ante un juez de inmigración. Aunque nada dice que no la puedan usar, realmente una vez el juez le da la salida voluntaria, esa es la forma en que sale la persona. Esa es la diferencia.

JORGE CANCINO:
Ahora, para muchos inmigrantes aceptar una salida voluntaria parece menos grave que una deportación formal. Legalmente, ¿qué consecuencias tiene cada una y cómo afecta futuras visas o intentos de regresar a Estados Unidos?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
La deportación acarrea una sanción de 5 o 10 años, o incluso hasta 20 años si la persona fue deportada por una felonía agravada.

Mientras que, con la salida voluntaria, la persona puede regresar, obviamente, siempre y cuando subsane cualquier inadmisibilidad que pueda tener en su récord. Es decir, cualquier razón por la que no pueda regresar a los Estados Unidos.

JORGE CANCINO:
Pasemos ahora a preguntas de nuestra audiencia, abogada. Junik nos dice: “Apliqué a mi residencia y permiso de trabajo hace ocho meses. En caso de que agentes de inmigración me paren, ¿tendré problemas?”

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Pudiera. Pudiera tener problemas, porque muchas de estas personas que tienen asilo pendiente, por ejemplo, o permiso de trabajo, igual las están deteniendo. Mi mejor consejo es: tengan cuidado, porque hoy en día sí pueden ser detenidos.

JORGE CANCINO:
Javier nos comenta: “Mi esposa está detenida, está embarazada, con asilo pendiente, y se niegan a dejarla en libertad. ¿Qué me recomienda hacer?”

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, ahí analice bien la situación. Si la persona está pasando mucho estrés, que pida tal vez una salida voluntaria, o mire las posibilidades, porque en este momento, aunque había sido prohibido detener a una mujer embarazada de acuerdo con un memorándum que había emitido el presidente Biden en el 2021, esta administración está deteniendo personas, mujeres embarazadas, sin importar su condición médica.

JORGE CANCINO:
Ana tiene la siguiente interrogante: “Mi esposo fue deportado en 2020 con un castigo de cinco años. ¿Qué debe hacer para conseguir una visa y regresar a Estados Unidos? ¿Le perdonarán la falta o lo castigarán de por vida?”

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, ahí tenemos que analizar bien cuál es la razón por la que la persona fue deportada. Si ella habla de cinco años, puede ser simplemente una deportación, un expedited removal, que usualmente le dan en la frontera.

Eso puede ser subsanado dependiendo del caso, si hay una petición de esposa ciudadana americana y dependiendo de qué otras inadmisibilidades pueda tener la persona. Entonces, ese caso sí tiene que analizarse con sus propios hechos.

JORGE CANCINO:
Y finalizamos con Roberto. Dice: “Cambié de domicilio, pero no he registrado mi nueva dirección por miedo. ¿Tendré problemas?”

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Pues podemos decir que hoy en día todas las personas pueden tener problemas, y es mejor que la registre, porque esta administración sí está haciendo cumplir una ley migratoria que dice que la persona está obligada a cambiar la dirección o incurre en una falta administrativa civil y tiene multas también.

JORGE CANCINO:
El formulario es AR-11, que además tiene un plazo establecido para cambiar la dirección.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Correcto, y lo pueden hacer también electrónicamente.

JORGE CANCINO:
Así es. Le agradecemos a la abogada Martha Arias Villa por habernos acompañado en La Voz de la Mañana.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

JORGE CANCINO:
As the cases of immigrants who abandon their asylum applications to avoid remaining detained for months increase, confusion also grows about who can leave voluntarily without a formal order and what legal consequences they face afterward.

To clarify this, we greet immigration attorney Martha Arias Villa, who visits us in the studio this Monday morning. Attorney, thank you very much for being on La Voz de la Mañana.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you very much for inviting me. Good morning to you and to your entire audience.

JORGE CANCINO:
This report speaks about more than 80,000 voluntary departures of immigrants out of fear of remaining detained for months or years. What is really happening in detention centers?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
In detention centers, what is happening is what you just said. People are tired, not only of being detained, but also of covering the economic costs of a defense, and they are choosing to leave voluntarily and ask the judge for that departure.

JORGE CANCINO:
Now, it is important to clarify for the audience what the difference is between a voluntary departure order granted by a judge and the people who decided to leave using CBP Home, this application, or other self-deportation programs.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Many people who use CBP Home are people who are here in the United States illegally, but who have never had an immigration court. So, obviously, they simply use CBP Home to be able to leave.

Voluntary departure is requested before an immigration judge. Although nothing says that they cannot use it, really once the judge gives voluntary departure, that is the way in which the person leaves. That is the difference.

JORGE CANCINO:
Now, for many immigrants, accepting voluntary departure seems less serious than a formal deportation. Legally, what consequences does each one have, and how does it affect future visas or attempts to return to the United States?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Deportation carries a penalty of 5 or 10 years, or even up to 20 years if the person was deported for an aggravated felony.

Whereas, with voluntary departure, the person can return, obviously, as long as they cure any inadmissibility that they may have in their record. That is, any reason why they cannot return to the United States.

JORGE CANCINO:
Let us now move to questions from our audience, attorney. Junik tells us: “I applied for my residence and work permit eight months ago. In case immigration agents stop me, will I have problems?”

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
They could. They could have problems, because many of these people who have pending asylum, for example, or a work permit, are still being detained. My best advice is: be careful, because today they can indeed be detained.

JORGE CANCINO:
Javier comments to us: “My wife is detained, she is pregnant, with pending asylum, and they refuse to release her. What do you recommend that I do?”

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, there, analyze the situation well. If the person is going through a lot of stress, maybe she should ask for voluntary departure, or look at the possibilities, because at this moment, although detaining a pregnant woman had been prohibited according to a memorandum that President Biden had issued in 2021, this administration is detaining people, pregnant women, regardless of their medical condition.

JORGE CANCINO:
Ana has the following question: “My husband was deported in 2020 with a five-year punishment. What should he do to obtain a visa and return to the United States? Will they forgive the fault, or will they punish him for life?”

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, there we have to analyze well what the reason is for which the person was deported. If she speaks of five years, it may simply be a deportation, an expedited removal, which they usually give at the border.

That can be cured depending on the case, if there is a petition from an American citizen wife and depending on what other inadmissibilities the person may have. So, that case does have to be analyzed with its own facts.

JORGE CANCINO:
And we finish with Roberto. He says: “I changed my address, but I have not registered my new address out of fear. Will I have problems?”

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, we can say that today all people can have problems, and it is better that he register it, because this administration is indeed enforcing an immigration law that says that the person is obligated to change the address or incurs a civil administrative fault and has fines as well.

JORGE CANCINO:
The form is AR-11, which also has an established deadline to change the address.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Correct, and they can also do it electronically.

JORGE CANCINO:
That is right. We thank immigration attorney Martha Arias Villa for having accompanied us on La Voz de la Mañana.

DISCLAIMER:
Immigration law changes frequently, and enforcement practices may change depending on federal policy, court decisions, and the facts of each case. This article is general information only and is not legal advice. If you are detained, have a pending case, received a removal order, or are considering voluntary departure, speak with an immigration attorney before making a decision.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Contact us today with your immigration questions.

With a passion for immigration law and a commitment to client advocacy, Immigration Law Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. provides the experienced legal representation for U.S. citizenship, employment and business visas, specialized on investor visas, green card petitions, deportation defense, and more. Schedule a consultation with the attorney today to discuss your immigration needs.

MIAMI OFFICE:
ARIAS VILLA, PLLC
Address: 9100 S Dadeland Blvd, #510
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 671-0018
Mobile: (305) 233-3110
Email: martha@ariasvilla.com

OFFICE HOURS:
Monday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Tuesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Wednesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Thursday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Friday: 9 AM – 3 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed

Martha L. Arias, Esq. - Miami Immigration Law Attorney

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Experienced Immigration Law Attorney in Miami

For professional and dedicated immigration legal services in Miami, reach out to our immigration attorney Martha Arias and her team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW
BOOK AN APPOINTMENT
CONTACT US

The post Voluntary Departure vs. Deportation appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/voluntary-departure-vs-deportation/feed/ 0 USCIS Biometrics Policy for Detained Immigrants https://ariasvilla.com/uscis-biometrics-policy-for-detained-immigrants/ https://ariasvilla.com/uscis-biometrics-policy-for-detained-immigrants/#respond Tue, 05 May 2026 16:57:21 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=12089 The post USCIS Biometrics Policy for Detained Immigrants appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

When a person applies for an immigration benefit, biometrics are often not a minor step. Fingerprints, photographs, and signatures can be required before USCIS can continue reviewing many types of applications. For people who are not detained, this usually means attending a scheduled appointment at a USCIS Application Support Center. For people who are detained, however, that simple step can become much more complicated.

USCIS recently updated its Policy Manual guidance on biometrics for detained individuals. According to USCIS, the update clarifies that DHS generally will not collect biometrics from detained individuals unless they are in removal proceedings and have an application or petition pending before the Executive Office for Immigration Review, also known as EOIR. USCIS also states that it does not approve requests to reschedule a biometrics appointment because of detention or incarceration.

This policy has now become the subject of a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit, J.Z. et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., challenges the policy on behalf of detained noncitizens who say they have pending immigration applications before USCIS but cannot complete biometrics because they are in custody.

Why Biometrics Matter in Immigration Cases

Biometrics are commonly used by USCIS for identity verification, background checks, and security screening. In many immigration applications, biometrics are a required step before the case can move forward.

The lawsuit explains the problem this way: USCIS may require biometrics to adjudicate an application, but under the updated policy, detained applicants may not be given a practical way to complete that requirement. The complaint alleges that this can cause applications to be denied without a review of the merits.

This matters because some immigration benefits are not decided by an immigration judge. Certain applications must be handled by USCIS, even when the person is also in removal proceedings. The complaint identifies examples such as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, T visas, U visas, certain adjustment of status applications, and certain family-based or humanitarian protections.

USCIS immigration application process showing biometrics and background checks

What USCIS Says the Policy Does

The USCIS policy update states that the agency is clarifying how biometrics are handled for detained individuals. The update removes older guidance and states that USCIS generally will not approve requests to collect biometrics from individuals detained or incarcerated in DHS or non-DHS facilities when they have only a pending USCIS application or petition.

USCIS has also stated that if an applicant does not appear for a required biometrics appointment, the benefit request may be treated as abandoned and denied, unless USCIS receives and accepts a proper reason to excuse the failure to appear. The current USCIS Policy Manual language, as quoted in the federal complaint, says USCIS does not approve rescheduling requests based on detention or incarceration.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The lawsuit argues that the policy creates a difficult and unfair situation for detained immigrants: they may be required to submit biometrics, but the government may not collect those biometrics or transport them to complete the appointment. Democracy Forward’s press release states that the plaintiffs are challenging a policy they say can force automatic denial of applications because detained applicants cannot complete the biometrics step.

The complaint alleges that the policy violates federal immigration law, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block enforcement of the policy, vacate it, and restore access to the application process while the case continues.

It is important to say this carefully: these are allegations in an active lawsuit. A court will decide the legal issues. But for families with loved ones in detention, the concern is immediate and practical.

Who May Be Affected?

This issue may affect detained individuals who have pending or future applications before USCIS and who need biometrics to move forward. The lawsuit describes detained plaintiffs seeking different forms of immigration relief, including SIJS, T visas, U visas, adjustment of status, and derivative asylum-related benefits.

Families should be especially careful if a detained loved one has received a biometrics appointment notice, missed a biometrics appointment, filed an application that requires fingerprints, or received a denial for abandonment after being unable to attend biometrics.

Documents families should keep when a detained immigrant misses USCIS biometrics

Practical Steps Families Should Consider

If your loved one is detained and has a pending USCIS application, do not assume the case will continue normally. Review every USCIS notice carefully, especially biometrics appointment notices, Requests for Evidence, denial notices, and any document mentioning abandonment.

It may also be important to preserve proof that the applicant was detained at the time of the biometrics appointment. This may include detention records, notices from ICE, correspondence with the detention facility, attorney letters, transportation requests, or any written communication showing that the person could not attend because they were in custody.

In some cases, legal counsel may consider whether to file a rescheduling request, a motion to reopen, a response to USCIS, or take another action depending on the facts. The correct step depends on the type of application, the procedural posture, whether the person is in removal proceedings, and whether USCIS or EOIR has jurisdiction over the relief being requested.

Why Legal Guidance Is Important

Immigration cases involving detention, USCIS applications, biometrics, and removal proceedings can become very complex very quickly. A missed biometrics appointment may seem like an administrative issue, but it can affect the future of the entire case.

For detained applicants, timing is very important. A family may be dealing with ICE custody, immigration court deadlines, USCIS notices, and possible removal risk at the same time. That is why it is important to speak with an immigration attorney who can review the full case history and identify what options may still be available.

If you or someone in your family is facing this situation, you may contact my office at (305) 671-0018 to schedule a consultation.

A missed biometrics appointment may seem administrative, but it can affect the future of the entire immigration case.

Book an Appointment

Frequently Asked Questions

What are biometrics in an immigration case?

Biometrics usually include fingerprints, photographs, and signatures. USCIS uses biometrics to verify identity and conduct background and security checks. In many immigration applications, biometrics are required before USCIS can complete the review of the case.

What changed in the USCIS biometrics policy for detained individuals?

USCIS updated its policy to clarify that DHS generally will not collect biometrics from detained individuals unless they are in removal proceedings and have an application or petition pending before EOIR. USCIS also states that detention or incarceration is not a basis it approves for rescheduling biometrics.

Can a detained immigrant’s USCIS application be denied for missing biometrics?

Yes, it may be denied as abandoned if USCIS requires biometrics and the applicant does not appear, unless USCIS accepts a valid reason under its rules. The lawsuit challenges how this rule affects detained applicants who cannot attend because they are in custody.

What does the lawsuit challenge?

The lawsuit challenges the DHS and USCIS policy that allegedly prevents detained immigrants from completing biometrics for USCIS applications. The plaintiffs argue that the policy can cause denials without a merits review and violates federal law, the Administrative Procedure Act, and due process.

Does this lawsuit mean the policy has already been stopped?

Not based on the article reviewed. The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to block enforcement and vacate the policy, but a lawsuit filing is not the same as a final court decision. Families should continue to treat USCIS notices and deadlines seriously while the case proceeds.

What should a family do if a detained loved one receives a biometrics appointment?

The family should act quickly. Keep copies of the appointment notice, detention proof, and any communication with ICE, the detention facility, USCIS, or an attorney. Because options depend on the exact case type and deadline, legal review is strongly recommended.

Does this affect people who are not detained?

This particular policy update focuses on detained or incarcerated individuals. People who are not detained should continue attending biometrics appointments as scheduled unless USCIS properly reschedules the appointment or gives different written instructions.

Can an immigration judge fix a missed USCIS biometrics issue?

Not always. Some immigration benefits are within USCIS’s exclusive or initial jurisdiction, meaning an immigration judge may not have authority to decide that application. This is one of the central concerns raised in the lawsuit.

Disclaimer:

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Immigration law changes frequently, and every case depends on its own facts, deadlines, immigration history, and procedural posture. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about a specific case, please consult with a qualified immigration attorney.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Contact us today with your immigration questions.

With a passion for immigration law and a commitment to client advocacy, Attorney Martha Arias provides the experienced legal representation for U.S. citizenship, employment and business visas, specialized on investor visas, green card petitions, deportation defense, and more. Schedule a consultation with the attorney today to discuss your immigration needs.

MIAMI OFFICE:
ARIAS VILLA, PLLC
Address: 9100 S Dadeland Blvd, #510
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 671-0018
Mobile: (305) 233-3110
Email: martha@ariasvilla.com

OFFICE HOURS:
Monday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Tuesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Wednesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Thursday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Friday: 9 AM – 3 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed

Martha L. Arias, Esq. - Miami Immigration Law Attorney

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Experienced Immigration Law Attorney

For professional and dedicated immigration legal services in your area, reach out to our immigration attorney Martha L. Arias and her team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW
BOOK AN APPOINTMENT
CONTACT US

The post USCIS Biometrics Policy for Detained Immigrants appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/uscis-biometrics-policy-for-detained-immigrants/feed/ 0 The 2026 “Habeas Readiness” Guide https://ariasvilla.com/the-2026-habeas-readiness-guide/ https://ariasvilla.com/the-2026-habeas-readiness-guide/#respond Tue, 31 Mar 2026 20:02:09 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11908 The post The 2026 “Habeas Readiness” Guide appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

Beyond Bond: How a Habeas Corpus Petition Can Challenge Unlawful Immigration Detention in 2026

The legal landscape for immigrants in the United States has shifted dramatically in early 2026. Following the March 26, 2026, Eighth Circuit ruling and various administrative enforcement priorities, many individuals who were previously eligible for bond are now finding themselves in “mandatory detention.” This shift has created a crisis where families are told by Immigration Judges (IJs) that their hands are tied by statute. When the Immigration Judge says “no bond” because of a perceived lack of jurisdiction, many families feel they have reached a dead end. However, there is a powerful constitutional tool that exists outside the immigration court system: The Writ of Habeas Corpus.

As we navigate the complexities of 2026 enforcement, it is vital to understand that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is not the final word on your physical liberty. While an immigration court is an administrative body under the Department of Justice, the U.S. District Court is a separate, independent judicial branch. By filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, we move your case into a forum where the U.S. Constitution—specifically the Due Process Clause—takes center stage over restrictive administrative policies.

What is a Habeas Corpus Petition?

A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a federal court filing submitted to a U.S. District Court that challenges the government’s legal authority to hold a person in custody. Known as the “Great Writ,” it is a centuries-old legal protection designed to prevent the government from holding individuals indefinitely or without a valid legal reason. In the 2026 immigration climate, this is becoming the “last line of defense” for several specific groups of people:

  1. Indefinite Detainees: This applies to individuals held for six months or longer without a clear deportation date. The Supreme Court has previously suggested that six months is a “presumptively reasonable” period; beyond that, the government must provide a strong justification for continued detention.
  2. Statutory Misinterpretations: Often, ICE claims someone is subject to “mandatory detention” under INA § 236(c) based on a minor crime or a status that should not actually trigger such a harsh result. A Habeas petition asks a Federal Judge to review if ICE is correctly interpreting the law.
  3. Constitutional and Due Process Violations: If a detainee is denied a fair hearing, if the conditions of detention are life-threatening, or if the lack of a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment, the District Court has the power to intervene.

At Arias Villa Law, we utilize Habeas Corpus to bypass the bottlenecks of the immigration agency. While a USCIS or ICE officer might follow a rigid manual, a Federal Judge follows the Constitution. This distinction can be the difference between months of detention and returning home to your family.

Why 2026 is Different: The Rise of “Mandatory” Holds

As of late March 2026, the intersection of new technology and shifting policies has created a “perfect storm” for detainees. With the recent conclusion of TPS for certain regions and the 2026 “Digital First” vetting initiatives, USCIS and ICE have increased the use of detentions based on “automated risk flags.” These flags are often generated by AI algorithms that scan digital history, social media, and travel patterns. Because these flags are frequently based on errors or outdated information in digital footprints, they can trigger a “mandatory hold” before a human officer even reviews the file.

How a Habeas-Corpus Petition Can Challenge Unlawful Immigration Detention

Furthermore, the 2026 judicial environment has seen several “pro-detention” rulings that limit the power of Immigration Judges to grant bond to “arriving aliens” and those with reinstated removal orders. This has led to a surge in individuals being held in facilities like Krome or Broward Transitional Center without a pathway to release through the standard court calendar.

A Habeas petition allows an Article III Federal Judge—who is appointed for life and independent of the political shifts within the Department of Justice—to review the facts of the case. They can determine if the “automated flag” or the “mandatory hold” actually meets the high legal standard required to deprive a person of their liberty. In 2026, we are finding that many “mandatory” detentions are, in fact, legally flawed and ripe for a Habeas challenge.

🛑WHAT TO DO IF A LOVED ONE IS DETAINED: THE 2026 EMERGENCY CHECKLIST

If an immigration official detains a family member, every hour counts. Contact us to schedule an appointment or follow these steps immediately:

  1. Locate the “A-Number”: This 9-digit Alien Registration Number is essential for tracking. Use the ICE Online Detainee Locator.
  2. Request the “Notice to Appear” (NTA): This document lists the specific charges. We need this to determine if a Habeas filing is the right strategy.
  3. Do Not Sign “Voluntary Departure”: Many detainees are pressured to sign Form I-821D or similar waivers. Instruct your loved one to say: “I wish to speak to my attorney, before signing anything.”
  4. Gather “Community Ties” Evidence: Collect 2026 tax returns, proof of children’s school enrollment, and medical records. These prove that the detainee is not a “flight risk” in the eyes of a Federal Judge.
  5. Audit the Digital Footprint: Ensure you have access to their social media handles, as USCIS vetting now heavily weighs online activity in 2026 detention decisions.

The Constitutional Path to Freedom

Unlike an Immigration Judge, a U.S. District Court Judge has the power to look at the Constitutionality of the detention itself. If the government cannot prove that the individual is a danger to the community or a significant flight risk, or if the government is taking an “unreasonable” amount of time to process a removal, the court may order their immediate release or a specialized “Zadvydas” bond hearing.

For our clients at Arias Villa Law, we focus on identifying these “unreasonable delays” early. With the current 2026 backlog in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), many detentions are stretching beyond constitutional limits. We believe that no one should be forgotten in a detention center simply because of an administrative backlog.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Can a Habeas Petition stop a deportation?
Technically, a Habeas petition challenges the detention (the physical custody), not necessarily the underlying deportation order. However, winning a Habeas case often results in the person being released under an Order of Supervision while their immigration case continues. This gives us more time to fight the underlying case from the safety of your home.

How long does a Habeas filing take in 2026?
While immigration courts are currently backed up for months or even years, Federal District Courts often move significantly faster on “Emergency Habeas” petitions. We often see an initial response from the court within 30 to 60 days, providing a much-needed acceleration to the legal process.

Is this only for people with criminal records?
No. In 2026, many people with no criminal record are being detained due to expired TPS status, clerical errors in the new “Digital First” system, or administrative processing delays. Habeas is a constitutional right available to anyone held unlawfully by the government.

Attorney Disclaimer:
The information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is highly complex and subject to rapid change. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this post. If you or a loved one is facing detention, please contact a qualified immigration attorney immediately to discuss the specifics of your case.

Immigration Law Attorney - Martha L. Arias, Esq.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

LISTEN TO MY PODCASTS

Immigration Law Attorney Martha Arias is on Amazon Music
Immigration Law Attorney Martha Arias is on iHeart Radio
Immigration Law Attorney Martha Arias is on Spotify

The post The 2026 “Habeas Readiness” Guide appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/the-2026-habeas-readiness-guide/feed/ 0 ICE Raids, Detentions, and Your Rights https://ariasvilla.com/ice-raids-detentions-and-your-rights/ https://ariasvilla.com/ice-raids-detentions-and-your-rights/#respond Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:45:48 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11831 The post ICE Raids, Detentions, and Your Rights appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

My Interview with Journalist Orian Brito (January 26, 2026)

This Monday, I joined journalist Orian Brito for an important conversation about the rise in ICE operations being reported in multiple parts of the country, including Florida. I appreciated Orian’s thoughtful approach—because in moments like these, clear information is what helps families avoid unnecessary fear and confusion.

During the interview, we discussed what has been publicly reported about a large enforcement operation in Florida known as “Tidal Wave,” which has been associated with more than 10,000 arrests according to what has been reported in the news. We also discussed reports of increased ICE presence in Central Florida and Orlando beginning around January 20, 2026, including comments publicly attributed to Congressman Maxwell Frost.

I also shared national-level data attributed to the American Immigration Council, including reported increases in ICE detentions and detention capacity trends. While many public conversations focus on individuals with criminal histories, I emphasized that there are also reports indicating a significant increase in detentions of people without criminal offenses, which raises serious concerns for families who are simply trying to live and work while they pursue lawful options.

What happens if someone is detained and has no criminal record?

One of the most important points I made is that every case is different. When someone is detained, the first legal question is often whether that person can request a bond—and whether an immigration judge will be recognized as having jurisdiction to consider that bond request. Factors like how the person entered the United States (with a visa, with parole, or without inspection) can affect the options available.

We also discussed a tool that may be used in certain situations: habeas corpus, a federal court filing that can challenge detention that is unlawful or unreasonably prolonged. Federal litigation is complex, costly, and highly procedural. Even so, in certain detention cases it may be one of the few meaningful pathways to request review.

A serious issue: reports of a DHS memo about home entry

Orian also raised a topic that has concerned many people: reports of a Department of Homeland Security memorandum suggesting that ICE officers could enter residences to make arrests without a federal judge’s warrant, relying on an administrative form (often discussed as an I-205). In the interview, I explained the crucial difference between an administrative document for arrest versus a judge-signed warrant for entering a home. I also shared that, according to what I read, the memo reportedly was not applied in part of Central California due to litigation there.

Know your rights if I.C.E. stops you in public.

Practical guidance for families

If your household is feeling anxious, there are a few responsible steps you can take immediately:

  • Get individualized legal advice. Your options depend on your exact immigration history and prior contacts with immigration authorities.
  • Keep your key documents organized. Make sure trusted family members know where to find them.
  • Have a family plan. Decide who will care for your children, how to access your medical information, and whom to call if a detention occurs.
  • Do not rely on rumors. Seek verified guidance before taking action that could harm your case.

How to contact my office

If you or a loved one needs a confidential consultation, you may contact my office at (305) 671-0018. My website is ariasvilla.com (and marthaarias.com redirects there as well). You may also find updates through my channels, and I appreciate everyone who stays informed and engaged.

Important Disclaimer: This post is for general information only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration matters are highly fact-specific. For legal advice about your situation, please consult a qualified immigration attorney.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

The post ICE Raids, Detentions, and Your Rights appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/ice-raids-detentions-and-your-rights/feed/ 0