FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS LAWYER FOR ICE DETENTION

Challenging Unlawful Immigration Detention in Federal Court

Kerben Law Firm regularly files federal habeas corpus petitions across the United States and has successfully secured the release of numerous individuals detained by ICE.

When time matters, a federal judge can order:
• Immediate release
• A new bond hearing
• Other legal relief

Was Someone You Care About Arrested by ICE?

We challenge unlawful ICE arrests and detention
in federal courts across the United States. Emergency consultations available 24/7.

RECENT FEDERAL HABEAS VICTORIES

Kerben Law Firm has litigated federal habeas corpus petitions in multiple federal courts across the country, including courts in Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, and California.

In these cases, federal judges have ordered:

Espinoza v. Lowe

Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa.)

Presiding: Judge Keli M. Neary

The Court granted the habeas petition and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release, ruling that detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) was unlawful because he was arrested in the interior and had not been given an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a). The Court also barred ICE from re-detaining him.

Gopie v. Lyons

Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Presiding: Judge Sanket J. Bulsara

The Court granted the habeas petition and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release, holding that ICE lacked authority to arrest him because it issued a warrant before serving a Notice to Appear (NTA), and further finding that ICE violated due process by failing to make an individualized custody determination prior to or contemporaneous with his arrest.

Lopez Rodriguez v. Soto

District of New Jersey (D.N.J.)

Presiding: Judge Zahid N. Quraishi

The court granted the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition and ordered his immediate release. The order also required the government to return all of his personal property, prohibited detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), barred re-arrest under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) for 14 days following release, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Gonzalez Puma v. Soto

District of New Jersey (D.N.J.)

Presiding: Judge Christine P. O’Hearn

The Court granted the habeas petition and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release, ruling that detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 was unlawful because she was apprehended in the interior and should have been processed under § 1226 with an opportunity for a bond hearing. The Court also barred ICE from re-detaining her under § 1225 and limited any future detention.

Minarcaja Concha v. Lyons

Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Presiding: Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury

The Court granted the habeas petition and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release, ruling that ICE violated court orders by transferring him out of the district and requiring his return before release. The Court also barred ICE from relying on § 1225 to deny bond absent changed circumstances.

Rojas Acevedo v. Almodovar

Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Presiding: Judge Lewis J. Liman

 

The court granted Rojas Acevedo’s habeas corpus petition, finding that his detention without notice or proper process violated his procedural due process rights. The respondents were ordered to immediately release him from ICE custody.

Cungachi Pinguil v. Soto

District of New Jersey (D.N.J.)


Presiding: Judge Christine P. O'Hearn

The court granted the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition and ordered his immediate release. The order also required the government to return all of his personal property, prohibited detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), barred re-arrest under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) for 14 days following release, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Rodriguez Acurio v. Almodovar

Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Presiding: Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury

The Court granted the habeas petition and ordered the petitioner’s release, ruling that she could not be detained under § 1225 without a change in circumstances. The Court also barred ICE from denying bond on that basis in future proceedings.

 

Guzman Cardenas v. Almodovar

Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)


Presiding: Judge Jesse M. Furman

The court granted Guzman Cardenas’s habeas corpus petition and ordered her immediate release from ICE custody. The court found that her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision asserted by the government, and that she had been detained without the required process.

Sanango v. Soto

District of New Jersey (D.N.J.)


Presiding: Judge Karen M. Williams

The court granted Sanango’s habeas corpus petition after finding that his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the post-removal detention provision in § 1231(a). The court concluded that the respondents had not shown his removal was imminent or that continued detention under a different statute was justified, and ordered his immediate release from ICE custody.




Ugsha Guanina v. Wofford

Eastern District of California (E.D. Cal.)

Presiding: Judge Jennifer L. Thurston

The court granted the habeas corpus petition and ordered the respondents to release the petitioner immediately from ICE custody. The court also prohibited re-detention unless a neutral decision-maker first holds a custody hearing where the government proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community.

Churunel Bocel v. Greene

Northern District of Ohio (N.D. Ohio)


Presiding: Judge David A. Ruiz

The court granted the habeas corpus petition after finding that detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225. The court ordered the respondents, within ten days, to provide the petitioner with a due-process-compliant bond hearing or release the petitioner from custody.

 

When Immigration Court Cannot Help, Federal Court Can

In recent years, immigration enforcement policies and changing interpretations  of  detention law have made it increasingly difficult for many detained individuals to obtain release through immigration court alone.


In some cases, immigration judges may conclude that a detainee is not eligible for bond, or government policy may restrict the court’s authority to order release.


When that happens, a federal habeas  corpus petition may allow a federal judge to review whether the arrest and  continued detention are lawful.

WHY ACTING QUICKLY MATTERS

One of the most important factors in detention cases is speed. 

After an arrest, ICE often transfers detainees to detention facilities in other states, sometimes within days.

These transfers can move a case into different federal court jurisdictions, including jurisdictions that may be more favorable to the government.

 Filing quickly may help ensure the case is heard in the federal court where the arrest occurred.

SITUATIONS WHERE HABEAS CORPUS MAY APPLY

Federal courts often intervene when immigration detention raises serious legal concerns.

Common examples include:

Arrests Without a Judicial Warrant

ICE arrests are often based on administrative warrants rather than warrants signed by a judge.

Routine Immigration Activity

Individuals detained outside immigration court, during routine ICE check-ins, or after appearing for immigration hearings.

Lack of Individualized Review

Detention must involve a meaningful assessment of flight risk or danger.

Detention Under the Wrong Legal Authority

In some cases ICE detains individuals under the wrong statutory authority, improperly preventing them from seeking bond.

Prolonged Detention

Immigration detention lasting longer than six months may raise constitutional concerns.

Post-Order Detention

People with final orders of removal cannot be detained indefinitely if removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

NATIONWIDE REPRESENTATION FOR ICE DETAINEES

Kerben Law Firm represents individuals detained by ICE anywhere in the United States.

Because habeas corpus petitions are filed in federal court, detention can be challenged regardless of where someone is being held.

If a loved one has been detained, our office can quickly evaluate whether emergency federal court action may be appropriate.

CONTACT OUR OFFICE

If someone you care about has been detained by ICE, do not wait.

In many cases, acting quickly can make a significant difference in the outcome.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Añade aquí tu texto de cabecera

What is a habeas corpus petition in immigration cases?

A habeas corpus petition is a lawsuit filed in federal court that challenges unlawful detention by the government. A federal judge determines whether ICE has legal authority to continue holding someone.

Yes. Federal courts can order immediate release, require bond hearings, or provide other relief from detention.

Federal courts can act quickly. In urgent situations judges may issue orders within hours.

ICE often transfers detainees to other states shortly after arrest. Acting quickly may help keep the case in the federal court where the arrest occurred.
Recent immigration court precedent and enforcement policies have made it increasingly difficult for certain individuals to obtain bond through immigration court alone.

Sometimes. Federal courts may review the legality of continued detention even after bond has been denied.

Many federal courts view detention longer than six months as an important benchmark when evaluating whether continued detention is lawful.

Sometimes. A criminal record does not automatically make detention lawful. Courts may still review whether detention authority is valid.

In some situations a federal habeas corpus petition may be the fastest legal tool available.

• Full name
• A‑number
• Detention facility
• Date and location of arrest
• Circumstances of arrest
• Any pending immigration court case

Try to remain calm and gather as much information as possible, including the person’s full name, date of birth, A-Number (if known), where and when the arrest occurred, and any paperwork provided by ICE. Determine where the individual is being detained and avoid waiting to see what happens next. Because ICE detention cases can move quickly, contacting an experienced deportation defense attorney as soon as possible allows the case to be evaluated and appropriate legal action to begin without unnecessary delay.

Generally, we recommend taking swift action rather than waiting to see what happens. Depending on the circumstances, delaying legal action may result in missed opportunities to challenge the detention, preserve important legal arguments, prevent a transfer to another detention facility, or seek emergency relief in federal court. Every case is different, and the best strategy depends on the legal authority for detention, the person’s immigration history, and the issues presented. Consulting with an experienced attorney as soon as possible allows you to understand your options and determine the most effective course of action before important deadlines or events occur.

Not necessarily. Although a transfer can complicate a case, it does not automatically prevent a habeas corpus petition from being filed or continued. The legal effect of a transfer depends on when it occurred, where the detainee is currently being held, whether a petition has already been filed, and whether the court has entered any orders restricting transfer. An experienced ICE detention attorney can evaluate the best course of action.

The first 24 hours after an ICE arrest are often fast-moving and can feel like a blur. The individual may be processed, interviewed, transported to a detention facility, or transferred to another location. Family members are frequently trying to locate their loved one while ICE is making custody decisions. Because important developments can occur quickly, contacting an experienced immigration attorney as soon as possible can help protect the detainee’s rights and ensure that all available legal options are considered.

Yes. Families often retain separate counsel to handle federal habeas corpus litigation while another attorney continues representing the client in immigration court. Although the two proceedings involve the same client, they are distinct legal actions with different rules, procedures, filing requirements, jurisdictional considerations, and, in many cases, separate federal court admission requirements. For that reason, it is not uncommon for different attorneys to represent the client in different forums. When multiple attorneys are involved, coordination between counsel is often important to ensure a consistent and effective legal strategy.

Yes. ICE’s determination that a client is not eligible for bond does not necessarily end the analysis. Depending on the governing law and the specific facts of the case, an immigration judge or a federal court may determine that the client is entitled to an individualized bond hearing or other relief, including immediate release from ICE custody. In some cases, a federal court may conclude that ICE relied on the wrong detention statute or that the client’s continued detention is otherwise unlawful. Whether these arguments are available depends on the applicable law, the jurisdiction where the client is detained, and the unique facts of the case.

Not always. A valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD) allows a person to work lawfully in the United States but does not necessarily prevent ICE from making an arrest or placing someone in immigration detention. Whether detention is lawful depends on the person’s immigration status, the legal authority asserted by ICE, and the facts of the case.

Not necessarily. Unlike entry into a private home, the Fourth Amendment generally permits warrantless public arrests under certain circumstances. Federal immigration law also authorizes ICE officers to make warrantless arrests in limited situations, such as when they have reason to believe a person is removable and likely to escape before an administrative warrant can be obtained. However, ICE’s authority to make warrantless arrests on the street is not unlimited. The arrest must still comply with the Fourth Amendment, federal immigration statutes, and applicable case law. Whether a particular street arrest was lawful depends on the specific facts, including how the individual was stopped, the information ICE possessed at the time, and whether constitutional protections were violated.

Generally, no. An administrative warrant, such as Form I-200 or Form I-205, is issued by the Department of Homeland Security—not by an independent judge. Standing alone, it generally does not authorize ICE officers to enter a private residence without consent. Unless a judicial warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies, individuals generally do not have to allow ICE officers into their home. Recent federal litigation has challenged policies encouraging home entries based solely on administrative warrants as inconsistent with longstanding Fourth Amendment protections.

Yes. Even individuals who have lived in the United States for many years may be detained by ICE if the agency believes they are removable under the immigration laws. However, a lengthy residence, family ties, employment history, community involvement, and compliance with prior immigration proceedings may all be important factors when evaluating available legal remedies and requests for release.
 
 
 

Yes. In appropriate emergency cases, we have prepared and filed federal habeas corpus petitions on the same day we were retained. Whether same-day filing is possible depends on the complexity of the case, the urgency of the circumstances, and how quickly we receive the necessary information and supporting documentation.

Yes. ICE arrests, transfers, and removals frequently occur outside normal business hours. Our firm offers 24-hour, 7-day-a-week emergency availability for ICE detention matters. If your loved one has been detained after hours, over a weekend, or on a holiday, contact us immediately so we can evaluate whether emergency legal action is appropriate.

Yes. We represent clients throughout the United States in ICE detention matters, including immigration bond proceedings, federal habeas corpus petitions, emergency motions, and other federal court litigation. When necessary, we work with trusted local counsel to ensure our clients receive effective representation regardless of where they are detained.

ICE detention cases often require immediate action and a thorough understanding of both immigration law and federal court litigation. Our firm focuses extensively on ICE detention matters and regularly represents clients in immigration courts and federal district courts throughout the country. We are available 24/7 for emergencies and believe in providing honest, straightforward advice from the outset. We discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of every case, explain the possible outcomes, and keep our clients informed throughout the process. While no attorney can guarantee success, we are committed to pursuing every available legal remedy as quickly and effectively as possible.

No. No ethical attorney can guarantee that a client will be released from ICE detention or that any particular outcome will be achieved. Every case depends on its own facts, the applicable law, and the decisions of the immigration court or federal court.

Our firm has successfully obtained the release of many clients from ICE detention through bond proceedings, federal habeas corpus litigation, and other forms of relief. However, past results do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can promise is that we will provide an honest assessment of your case, explain your legal options, and diligently pursue the strongest legal strategy available.

Yes. In most cases, a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or other family member contacts our office first. Family members can provide important information regarding the arrest, detention location, and the client’s immigration history while we begin evaluating the available legal options. We usually coordinate directly with our detained client as soon as possible.

Yes. ICE arrests and transfers frequently occur outside normal business hours. Our firm offers 24/7 emergency representation for ICE detention matters. If your loved one has been arrested over a weekend or holiday, contact us immediately so we can evaluate the case and determine whether emergency action—including a federal habeas corpus petition—is appropriate.

A bond hearing is conducted before an Immigration Judge and focuses primarily on whether the client should be released from ICE custody under the applicable immigration laws. A federal habeas corpus petition is filed in United States District Court and challenges the legality or constitutionality of the client’s detention itself. Depending on the circumstances, a federal court may order an individualized bond hearing, immediate release from ICE custody, or other appropriate relief.

Generally, no. A federal habeas corpus petition ordinarily challenges the legality of a client’s detention—not whether the Immigration Judge correctly decided the underlying immigration case. Challenges to removal orders, asylum denials, or other immigration decisions generally must be pursued through the immigration appeals process or, when appropriate, by filing a Petition for Review with the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.

Yes. Depending on the circumstances, a federal court may order an individualized bond hearing, immediate release from ICE custody, or other appropriate relief. The remedy depends on the legal violation established, the relief requested, and the relief the court determines is appropriate.

The timeline depends on the circumstances of your case and how quickly we receive the necessary information and documents. In true emergencies, our firm has prepared and filed federal habeas corpus petitions within hours of being retained. Other cases may require additional investigation or record collection before filing. Because every hour can matter in ICE detention cases, we move as quickly as the facts and circumstances allow.

Yes. Federal district courts have the authority to determine whether ICE is detaining someone lawfully. If the court concludes that the detention violates the Constitution or federal law, it may order an individualized bond hearing, immediate release from ICE custody, prohibit ICE from transferring or removing the client while the case is pending, or grant other appropriate relief.

Every federal judge manages habeas corpus cases differently. After a petition is filed, the court may review the petition, issue scheduling orders, prohibit transfer or removal while the case is pending, require the government to explain the legal basis for the client’s detention, and establish deadlines for written submissions. The government is generally given an opportunity to respond before the court rules, although emergency relief may be granted sooner in appropriate cases. The parties may then present evidence and legal arguments before the court orders additional proceedings, an individualized bond hearing, release from ICE custody, or dismissal of the petition.

 

Immigration courts are administrative courts within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and decide issues such as removability, applications for immigration relief, and bond in appropriate cases. Federal district courts are part of the Judicial Branch and review constitutional and legal challenges involving immigration detention through proceedings such as habeas corpus. Put simply, immigration courts generally decide whether a client may remain in the United States, while federal courts determine whether ICE has lawful authority to continue detaining the client.

 

Yes. A client does not always have to wait for the immigration court process to conclude before seeking relief in federal court. If ICE is detaining the client without lawful authority or otherwise violating the Constitution or federal law, a habeas corpus petition may be appropriate even while immigration proceedings remain pending.

A denial of bond does not necessarily end the case. Depending on the circumstances, the client may appeal the bond decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals or, in limited situations, return to federal court by filing a motion to enforce the court’s order. Because Immigration Judges have broad discretion in bond proceedings, overturning a bond denial is generally difficult unless the hearing failed to comply with the federal court’s specific instructions or was so fundamentally unfair that it violated due process. The appropriate next step depends on the facts of the case and the terms of the federal court’s order.
Yes. A final order of removal does not automatically prevent someone from seeking habeas corpus relief. A habeas corpus petition generally challenges the legality of continued detention—not the validity of the removal order itself. Relief may be available when removal cannot be accomplished within a reasonably foreseeable period, ICE continues to detain the client beyond the time authorized by law, or other constitutional or statutory violations exist.

Yes. One of the most common habeas corpus issues today involves whether ICE is relying on the correct statutory authority for detention. If ICE applies the wrong detention statute, a federal court may determine that the client is entitled to an individualized bond hearing, immediate release from ICE custody, or other appropriate relief. Whether that argument is available depends on the facts of the case and the law governing the jurisdiction where the client is detained.

Yes. Prolonged immigration detention can violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Whether detention has become unlawfully prolonged depends on factors such as the length of detention, the reasons for any delay, the governing detention statute, and the law of the federal circuit where the client is detained.
Yes. ICE may re-detain someone who was previously released under certain circumstances. However, ICE generally must comply with the Constitution, federal law, and, where applicable, its own regulations before re-detaining a client. In appropriate cases, a federal habeas corpus petition may challenge the lawfulness of the re-detention.

Not always. ICE regulations generally require specific procedures before revoking an Order of Supervision, including notice and an opportunity to respond in appropriate circumstances. If ICE fails to follow its own regulations or re-detains a client without the required process, the detention may be challenged through a federal habeas corpus petition.

Sometimes. ICE may revoke parole under certain circumstances, but it must act within the limits of federal law and its own regulations. If ICE unlawfully revokes parole or fails to follow the required procedures, the client may be able to challenge the detention through a federal habeas corpus petition or other legal proceedings.

Our firm handles a wide range of federal immigration habeas corpus cases, including challenges to unlawful mandatory detention, the denial of bond hearings, prolonged detention, post-final-order detention, unlawful re-detention, parole or Order of Supervision revocations, detention under the wrong statutory authority, and other violations of the Constitution or federal immigration law. Every case is unique and requires an individualized legal analysis.

Ready to Take the First Step?

To schedule your personalized consultation, call us at (718) 255-8585 or submit the consultation form below.

Submit Your Form to Schedule a Consultation

First Name and Last Name(Required)