When Immigration and Customs Enforcement takes someone into custody, the immigration court may not always have authority to order release.

In some cases, ICE or an Immigration Judge may conclude that the detained person is subject to mandatory detention and cannot receive a bond hearing. In others, the person may remain detained for months while removal proceedings, withholding proceedings, administrative appeals, or efforts to obtain travel documents continue.

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may allow the detained person to challenge the legal basis, procedures, or length of immigration detention in federal district court.

Depending on the facts and governing law, a habeas petition may seek:

  • Release from unlawful detention
  • A bond hearing before an Immigration Judge
  • A constitutionally adequate custody hearing
  • A determination that ICE is using the wrong detention statute
  • Review of detention that has become unreasonably prolonged
  • Release when removal is not reasonably foreseeable
  • Compliance with required custody-review procedures
  • Another remedy necessary to correct unlawful custody

A habeas petition is not automatically available to every person detained by ICE. The proper claim and potential remedy depend on why the person is detained, where the person is confined, whether a removal order is final, the governing federal circuit, the length of detention, prior custody proceedings, criminal history, and the status of the underlying immigration case.

These cases are legally complex and can move quickly.

Request an Immigration Detention Case Evaluation

The Short Answer

A federal habeas petition may be appropriate when a person is in immigration custody and ICE claims the person is categorically ineligible for bond, the Immigration Judge says the court lacks bond jurisdiction, ICE is detaining the person under the wrong statutory provision, the person has been detained for a prolonged period without a meaningful custody hearing, a prior custody determination no longer reflects current circumstances, the government is continuing detention after a final removal order even though removal is not reasonably foreseeable, ICE has failed to follow required custody-review procedures, or continued detention raises serious constitutional concerns.

The federal district court does not ordinarily take over the person’s removal case or decide the underlying application for asylum, cancellation of removal, or adjustment of status.

Instead, the court examines whether the person’s custody complies with federal statutes, regulations, and the Constitution.

What Is a Federal Habeas Corpus Petition?

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal mechanism used to challenge unlawful government custody.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal district court may consider a petition filed by a person who contends that federal custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

In the immigration context, habeas corpus has historically served as an important safeguard against unlawful executive detention.

A habeas petition may challenge whether the government has statutory authority to detain the person, whether the government is using the correct detention statute, whether detention without a bond hearing violates due process, whether prolonged detention remains constitutionally permissible, whether detention after a removal order has become unlawful, whether required custody procedures were provided, or whether the petitioner is entitled to release or a new custody determination.

A habeas case is filed in a United States District Court, not in immigration court.

That distinction matters. Immigration Judges exercise authority delegated by immigration statutes and regulations. Federal district judges exercise the judicial power of the United States and can review certain claims that an immigration tribunal cannot resolve.

Why More Immigration Detainees Are Turning to Federal Court

Immigration custody law changed significantly in 2025.

For many years, Immigration Judges conducted bond hearings for certain people who had entered the United States without inspection and were later arrested by ICE in the interior of the country.

In July 2025, DHS adopted a broader interpretation of the mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Under that interpretation, many people who entered without being admitted or paroled are treated as applicants for admission who must remain detained throughout removal proceedings unless DHS grants parole.

The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that position in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). The BIA held that Immigration Judges lack authority to conduct bond hearings or grant bond to people present in the United States without admission.

The BIA has subsequently applied that rule to additional categories of respondents.

As a result, a person may be arrested after living in the United States for years—sometimes with a family, employment, a pending immigration application, and no criminal history—and then be told that no Immigration Judge has authority to consider release on bond.

Federal courts have not uniformly accepted that interpretation.

Several federal courts of appeals have concluded that certain people arrested in the interior after living in the United States following an unlawful entry are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits a bond determination. Other courts have accepted the government’s position that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention.

The issue is now the subject of a significant federal circuit split and pending Supreme Court petitions. The governing law may therefore depend heavily on where the person is detained and may change while a case is pending.

Any website explanation of these cases must be reviewed frequently.

Matter of Yajure Hurtado and Mandatory Detention

In Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the BIA concluded that a person present in the United States without admission is an applicant for admission subject to detention under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Under the BIA’s interpretation, the detention statute uses mandatory language, the Immigration Judge lacks authority to redetermine custody, release on immigration bond under § 1226(a) is unavailable, and DHS parole may be the only administrative release mechanism identified by the government.

The decision represents a major departure from the custody framework previously applied in many immigration cases.

Federal habeas petitions have challenged the government’s position on statutory and constitutional grounds. Those challenges have produced different outcomes in different jurisdictions.

The Current Federal-Court Split

As of August 20, 2026:

  • The Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have issued decisions rejecting the government’s broad application of § 1225(b)(2)(A) to at least certain people arrested in the interior long after entering without inspection. Those courts have treated the detention as governed by § 1226(a), permitting a bond hearing.
  • The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have accepted the government’s interpretation that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention for people present without admission.
  • Other jurisdictions may not yet have controlling appellate authority or may apply materially different precedent.
  • Multiple petitions presenting these issues were pending before the U.S. Supreme Court as of this page’s last legal review, including Supreme Court Docket No. 26-104, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha.

This is a rapidly developing area of law. A result obtained in one federal circuit does not establish that the same relief will be available elsewhere.

What Can a Habeas Petition Ask the Federal Court to Do?

The requested relief depends on the legal defect alleged.

Order Release

In an appropriate case, the petitioner may ask the district court to order release because the government lacks lawful authority to continue detention.

Outright release is not automatic. A court may instead allow the government an opportunity to correct the unlawful detention through a custody hearing or another process.

Order a Bond Hearing

A petition may ask the district court to determine that the person is detained under a statute that permits bond and order the government to provide an Immigration Judge bond hearing.

The federal district judge ordinarily does not set the immigration bond. The court may order the appropriate immigration tribunal to conduct the hearing under the governing legal standard.

Order a Constitutionally Adequate Custody Hearing

In some prolonged-detention cases, the claim may be that continued detention without an individualized hearing violates the Fifth Amendment.

The requested relief may include a hearing addressing danger to persons or property, risk of flight, available release conditions, the length and likely future duration of detention, reasons for delay, the government’s interest in continued custody, and whether less restrictive conditions can reasonably address the government’s concerns.

The burden of proof and required procedures depend on the detention statute and controlling law in the applicable jurisdiction.

Require a New Custody Determination

A petitioner may argue that the existing custody decision is legally inadequate, based on an incorrect statute, procedurally defective, or no longer reliable because circumstances have materially changed.

Challenge Post-Removal-Order Detention

After a removal order becomes administratively final, custody is generally governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231.

The government ordinarily has a 90-day removal period in which detention is required. Continued detention may be authorized beyond that period for certain categories of people.

Under Zadvydas v. Davis, post-removal-order detention may become impermissible when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. The Supreme Court identified six months as a presumptively reasonable period, but six months is not an automatic release deadline.

After that period, the detained person generally must provide good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government may then need to rebut that showing.

Require Compliance With Custody-Review Procedures

ICE regulations provide administrative custody-review procedures for certain post-order detainees. A habeas petition may challenge the government’s failure to provide a required review or its reliance on a process that does not satisfy applicable law.

What a Habeas Petition Usually Does Not Do

A habeas petition challenging immigration detention ordinarily does not cancel a removal order, grant asylum, grant cancellation of removal, approve adjustment of status, decide whether the person is removable, replace an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, replace a petition for review in a federal court of appeals, automatically terminate immigration proceedings, or guarantee release.

Federal law channels many challenges to removal orders and removal proceedings into specific administrative and appellate procedures. Section 1252 of Title 8 also limits district-court jurisdiction over certain immigration claims.

The petition must therefore distinguish a permissible challenge to custody from an impermissible attempt to obtain district-court review of the removal case itself.

Which Immigration Detention Statute Applies?

Determining the source of the government’s detention authority is often the most important step in a habeas case.

Different statutes apply to different procedural and factual circumstances.

Detention Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225

Section 1225 governs applicants for admission and contains mandatory-detention provisions.

It commonly applies to certain people encountered at or near the border, certain arriving noncitizens, people placed in expedited-removal proceedings, certain people referred for full removal proceedings after a credible-fear process, and other people DHS classifies as applicants for admission under its current interpretation.

People detained under § 1225 generally do not have access to an ordinary Immigration Judge bond hearing. DHS may possess discretionary parole authority in qualifying cases, but parole and bond are not the same process.

The scope of § 1225(b)(2)(A) as applied to people arrested in the interior after an earlier unlawful entry is the subject of the current circuit split.

Detention Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)

Section 1226(a) permits the government to arrest and detain a noncitizen while a decision on removal is pending. It also permits release on bond or conditional parole in qualifying cases.

A person detained under § 1226(a) may be entitled to request a bond redetermination before an Immigration Judge.

The ordinary bond inquiry generally addresses whether the person presents a danger to persons or property, a threat to national security, or a risk of failing to appear.

The current dispute is whether certain people who entered without inspection and were later arrested in the interior fall under § 1226(a) or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Mandatory Detention Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)

Section 1226(c) mandates detention for certain noncitizens connected to specified criminal, security, or terrorism-related grounds.

An Immigration Judge may lack ordinary bond authority if § 1226(c) applies.

A person may nevertheless dispute whether the conviction or conduct falls within the statute, whether the government has correctly classified the offense, whether the mandatory-detention provision applies to the person, identity or record errors, whether the person is actually included in the statutory category, or whether prolonged detention creates an individualized constitutional problem.

A habeas petition cannot be based merely on disagreement with the policy of mandatory detention. It must identify a legally cognizable defect in the custody.

Detention Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231

Section 1231 generally governs detention after a removal order becomes administratively final.

The custody analysis may involve the 90-day removal period, a judicial stay of removal, withholding-only proceedings, reinstated removal orders, administrative custody reviews, cooperation with travel-document efforts, and whether removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The exact point at which § 1231 begins to govern can itself be disputed.

Who May Have a Potential Habeas Claim?

The Immigration Judge Says There Is No Bond Jurisdiction

This frequently arises under Matter of Yajure Hurtado or another mandatory-detention classification.

The legal analysis may turn on how and when the person entered, whether the person was admitted or paroled, how long the person lived in the United States before arrest, the charges in the Notice to Appear, whether § 1225, § 1226(a), or § 1226(c) applies, controlling circuit precedent, and whether administrative exhaustion would be required or futile.

The Person Was Arrested After Years in the United States

A longstanding resident arrested in the interior may have statutory or constitutional arguments that differ from those available to someone apprehended while entering or shortly after entry.

Relevant facts may include length of residence, family relationships, U.S. citizen or permanent resident relatives, employment and property, pending immigration applications, prior parole or release, compliance with immigration proceedings, criminal history, and the circumstances of the ICE arrest.

These facts do not automatically create release eligibility, but they may affect both the legal challenge and a later bond determination.

Detention Has Become Prolonged

The length of custody is important, but there is no universal rule that every immigration detainee receives a bond hearing after six months.

The Supreme Court has rejected interpretations that automatically insert six-month bond-hearing requirements into certain detention statutes. See Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez and Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez.

An individualized constitutional claim may still be available in some jurisdictions. Courts may consider total time in detention, likely future duration, whether detention has exceeded the criminal sentence associated with the underlying conduct, responsibility for delay, whether the person sought review in good faith, whether removal is reasonably foreseeable, whether the detention resembles punishment, and the procedural protections already provided.

The Government Is Using the Wrong Statute

A habeas petition may assert that the person should be detained under a discretionary provision rather than a mandatory one.

This distinction can determine whether an Immigration Judge has authority to conduct a bond hearing.

Removal Is Not Reasonably Foreseeable

A person detained after a final removal order may have a claim under Zadvydas when the designated country will not accept the person, identity or nationality cannot be established, the government cannot obtain travel documents, diplomatic conditions prevent removal, removal has repeatedly failed, or other evidence shows no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The detained person’s cooperation with removal efforts is important. Failure to cooperate can affect the statutory removal period and undermine a habeas claim.

ICE Re-Detained the Person

A person who was previously released and later returned to custody may have claims involving the statutory authority for re-detention, changed circumstances, procedures used to revoke release, notice and opportunity to respond, reliance interests, compliance with prior release conditions, and whether immediate detention without a hearing satisfies due process.

Factors That Can Strengthen a Detention Challenge

No single factor guarantees relief, but potentially favorable facts include long residence in the United States, a fixed and verified residence, U.S. citizen or LPR family members, primary responsibility for children or vulnerable relatives, consistent employment, ownership of a home or business, compliance with prior immigration hearings, compliance with ICE supervision, no criminal history, old or relatively minor criminal history, evidence of rehabilitation, a viable application for immigration relief, a concrete release and supervision plan, medical or mental-health needs, a sponsor willing to provide housing and transportation, ability to comply with electronic monitoring, and documentary evidence rebutting danger or flight-risk concerns.

The legal challenge and release evidence should be developed together. Winning an order for a bond hearing may not result in release if the bond record is weak.

Factors That May Make Relief More Difficult

Potential obstacles include recent violent or serious criminal conduct, unresolved criminal charges, gang or national-security allegations, prior failures to appear, violations of ICE supervision, use of multiple identities, false statements to immigration officials, an imminent and executable removal, failure to cooperate with travel-document efforts, recent unlawful entry, prior absconding, weak or undocumented sponsorship, and filing in a jurisdiction with unfavorable controlling law.

Adverse facts do not always eliminate every claim. They must be addressed directly and accurately.

Where Is an Immigration Habeas Petition Filed?

Venue and jurisdiction require immediate attention.

A traditional custody habeas petition is ordinarily filed in the federal district with authority over the person’s immediate custodian—often the district where the detainee is physically confined.

Immigration transfers can complicate that analysis. ICE may move a detained person between facilities, sometimes across state and federal district lines.

Counsel must determine where the person is currently detained, who exercises immediate custody, which district court has territorial jurisdiction, whether a transfer has occurred or is imminent, which government officials should be named, which circuit’s law governs, whether counsel is admitted in the district, and whether local counsel or special admission is necessary.

A family member’s location, the immigration court’s location, or the attorney’s office does not necessarily determine where the habeas petition belongs.

Because the governing law differs sharply among circuits, transfer and venue can materially affect the case.

Must Administrative Remedies Be Exhausted First?

Sometimes.

Federal courts may require or strongly favor exhaustion of available administrative remedies before exercising habeas jurisdiction. Potential remedies can include requesting an Immigration Judge bond hearing, appealing a custody decision to the BIA, requesting ICE parole, seeking an ICE custody review, completing post-order custody procedures, or raising the detention classification before the immigration tribunal.

Exhaustion may be excused in some circumstances, including when the agency lacks authority to grant the requested relief, binding BIA precedent makes the administrative request futile, the claim presents a constitutional issue outside the agency’s authority, delay would cause irreparable harm, or the available process is inadequate.

Exhaustion rules vary by jurisdiction and claim. Counsel should not assume that administrative review is always required—or always unnecessary.

How Quickly Can a Federal Habeas Case Move?

There is no guaranteed timetable.

Some emergency detention cases receive rapid judicial attention. Others require service on federal respondents, a government response, jurisdictional briefing, statutory and constitutional briefing, development of the custody record, a hearing, supplemental briefing, objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, or appeal.

A case may become moot if ICE releases or removes the petitioner, although disputes about the terms or legality of custody may remain.

A petition should be prepared with the expectation that the government may oppose jurisdiction, venue, exhaustion, the merits, and the requested remedy.

What Happens If the Court Grants the Petition?

Possible outcomes include immediate release, release unless the government provides a hearing within a specified period, an Immigration Judge bond hearing, a new custody determination under the correct statute, an order requiring constitutionally adequate procedures, a post-order custody review, conditional relief allowing the government to cure the defect, or another remedy tailored to the unlawful detention.

A successful habeas petition does not necessarily end removal proceedings. The client may still need representation for asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, waivers, motions, BIA appeals, or compliance with release conditions.

Release protects the person from continued custody while the immigration case proceeds. It does not grant lawful immigration status.

What Happens If the Petition Is Denied?

A district court may deny a petition because it lacks jurisdiction, the petition was filed in the wrong district, the wrong respondent was named, administrative remedies were not exhausted, the detention statute was correctly applied, controlling circuit law forecloses the claim, detention has not yet become constitutionally prolonged, removal remains reasonably foreseeable, the record does not support the alleged violation, the claim improperly challenges the removal order, or the requested relief is unavailable.

Depending on the circumstances, options may include appeal to the appropriate federal circuit court, pursuing administrative custody relief, filing a new petition after circumstances materially change, seeking DHS parole, renewing a bond request when legally permitted, challenging the underlying detention classification, or continuing to pursue relief in immigration court.

The representation agreement should specify whether an appeal or additional proceeding is included.

Why the Release Plan Matters

A strong legal claim may establish a right to a hearing without proving that the person should ultimately be released.

A practical release plan should address where the person will live, who will provide financial support, transportation to court and ICE appointments, ability to appear remotely when permitted, medical or mental-health care, employment prospects, childcare or family obligations, passport and identity documentation, electronic monitoring, check-in requirements, and other conditions reasonably designed to ensure appearance.

Potential supporting evidence may include sponsor declarations, proof of address, lease or property records, employment letters, tax records, family birth and marriage certificates, medical records, criminal dispositions, rehabilitation evidence, community letters, and prior immigration-court appearance records.

Why Experience Inside Immigration Court Matters

A federal habeas petition is filed in district court, but the detention arose from an immigration case.

Effective representation may require understanding the Notice to Appear, charges of inadmissibility or deportability, immigration court jurisdiction, bond authority, mandatory-detention classifications, the underlying application for relief, BIA precedent, ICE custody procedures, the likely duration of proceedings, and how release would affect the immigration case.

The federal-court petition and immigration-court strategy should not work against each other.

Statements made in a habeas petition may become relevant to the underlying removal proceeding. Claims concerning entry, admission, parole, criminal history, and eligibility for relief must be accurate and consistent with the immigration record.

Led by a Former Immigration Judge and DHS Trial Attorney

National Security Law Firm’s immigration practice is led by Justin M. Price, a former U.S. Immigration Judge who previously spent more than 12 years representing the Department of Homeland Security in immigration court.

As an Immigration Judge, Justin presided over removal proceedings, ruled on contested motions, evaluated evidence and credibility, and issued decisions concerning removability and applications for relief.

Before serving on the bench, he represented DHS in immigration court and advised federal law enforcement personnel on immigration investigations and enforcement actions.

Justin also served as an Air Force Judge Advocate and military prosecutor and later represented individuals as an Assistant Public Defender.

That experience gives NSLF a particularly valuable perspective in detention litigation: we understand how immigration courts analyze bond jurisdiction, how DHS develops and defends detention positions, how judges evaluate credibility and documentary evidence, how the custody case interacts with removal proceedings, and that winning a hearing is different from building the evidence needed to obtain release.

Few immigration lawyers have served as both the government’s advocate and the immigration court’s decision-maker.

Learn More About Former Immigration Judge Justin M. Price

How National Security Law Firm Can Help

Depending on the case and jurisdiction, NSLF may assist with emergency review of ICE detention, identifying the statute DHS is using, evaluating bond jurisdiction, reviewing Matter of Yajure Hurtado issues, assessing circuit-specific habeas authority, obtaining immigration and custody records, evaluating exhaustion requirements, preparing a federal habeas petition, developing statutory and constitutional arguments, coordinating admission or local counsel where necessary, preparing declarations and release evidence, responding to government motions, preparing for a federal-court hearing, coordinating a court-ordered immigration bond hearing, and representing the client in related immigration proceedings under a separate agreement.

NSLF evaluates immigration-detention matters nationwide. Acceptance depends on the place of confinement, governing law, deadlines, attorney-admission requirements, local-counsel arrangements, case posture, and available firm capacity.

Information Needed for an Emergency Case Review

Provide as much of the following as possible.

Detention Information

Full legal name and aliases, A-Number, date and location of arrest, current detention facility, ICE Online Detainee Locator results, date and details of any transfer, ICE field office, custody determination, bond order or Immigration Judge ruling, and upcoming hearing dates.

Immigration History

Date, place, and manner of each entry, whether the person was admitted or paroled, prior removal, deportation, or expedited-removal orders, pending asylum or other applications, Notice to Appear, immigration court documents, prior bond requests, BIA appeals, ICE supervision history, and prior immigration filings.

Criminal History

Arrest reports, charging documents, certified dispositions, sentencing records, probation or parole records, evidence of dismissal or expungement, and rehabilitation evidence.

Release Plan

Proposed address, sponsor information, proof of family relationships, employment evidence, financial support, medical needs, community ties, and ability to comply with release conditions.

Do not wait to contact counsel merely because documents are missing. Detention location and deadlines may change quickly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a federal judge release someone from ICE detention?

A federal district judge may order release in an appropriate habeas case. The court may instead order the government to provide a bond hearing or another legally adequate custody process.

Relief depends on the claim, evidence, governing law, and court’s authority.

Is everyone entitled to an immigration bond hearing?

No. Some people are subject to detention provisions that do not provide ordinary Immigration Judge bond authority.

The dispute in many current cases is whether the government has correctly placed the person within a mandatory-detention category.

What if the Immigration Judge says there is no jurisdiction to grant bond?

That conclusion may be based on § 1225, § 1226(c), Matter of Yajure Hurtado, or another rule.

A federal habeas petition may be available to challenge the statutory classification or constitutionality of detention, but availability depends heavily on jurisdiction and the individual record.

What if the person entered without inspection many years ago?

That is one of the central issues in current federal litigation.

Some federal appellate courts have held that people arrested in the interior long after an unlawful entry are detained under § 1226(a) and may seek bond. Other courts have accepted the government’s mandatory-detention theory under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Does six months in detention automatically require release?

No. Six months is not a universal automatic-release or bond-hearing deadline.

The six-month period has particular significance in post-final-order detention under Zadvydas. Prolonged pre-final-order detention claims depend on the applicable statute, circuit law, procedural history, and individual circumstances.

Can the petition challenge the removal order?

A district-court habeas petition ordinarily cannot be used as a substitute for the statutory process governing review of a removal order.

Challenges to final removal orders generally must proceed through a petition for review in the appropriate federal court of appeals.

Can the family file the habeas petition?

The detained person is ordinarily the petitioner. A family member can help retain counsel and gather documents but does not generally replace the detained person as the party challenging custody.

Does filing a petition stop removal?

Not automatically. A habeas petition challenging detention does not necessarily stay removal.

If removal is imminent, counsel must separately evaluate whether a stay is available and which court or agency has authority to grant it.

Can NSLF handle the underlying removal case too?

Potentially. Federal habeas litigation and removal defense are separate engagements. The firm must evaluate the immigration proceeding, court location, deadlines, conflicts, staffing, and scope before accepting both.

How much does an immigration detention habeas case cost?

Fees depend on the jurisdiction, urgency, factual record, anticipated briefing, government opposition, local-counsel needs, hearings, and whether appellate work is required.

NSLF provides the scope and fee after reviewing the detention posture and likely federal litigation.

Request an Immigration Detention Case Evaluation

If a family member is in ICE custody and has been denied a bond hearing, classified as subject to mandatory detention, or held for a prolonged period, time matters.

The first questions are: Where is the person detained? What statute does the government claim authorizes detention? Does the Immigration Judge have bond jurisdiction? What does controlling circuit law provide? Are administrative remedies available or required? What relief can the federal district court legally order? What evidence supports release if a hearing is granted?

National Security Law Firm can evaluate the detention, immigration history, governing jurisdiction, and available federal-court options.

Schedule a Confidential Case Evaluation

National Security Law Firm: It’s Our Turn to Fight for You.

Legal Authorities and Official Resources

This page provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration detention law differs materially by statute, procedural posture, district, and federal circuit and is changing rapidly. Results depend on the individual facts and governing law. Prior judicial or government service does not imply government endorsement, special access, or influence over a court or agency.