Human Impact Project

The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition on August 25, 2026, challenging her detention by immigration officials and seeking to stop her removal from the United States. She had previously been held within the District of Kansas, but by the time her petition was filed she had already been transported outside Kansas en route to a detention facility in Texas for her removal by charter flight. She sought a temporary restraining order to block her removal to an alternative third country, arguing due process required certain procedures first. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because she was not confined within the district at the time of filing, and found no evidence the government concealed her location or moved her to evade habeas jurisdiction. The court also concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) stripped it of jurisdiction to enjoin execution of her removal order. As a result, the court denied the TRO motion and ordered respondents to file a status update on her removal by September 2, 2026.

The petitioner filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order after being told his removal from the United States would occur within hours. He also filed a habeas petition challenging his detention and pending removal. The court found that immigration authorities appeared to have failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l), which governs continued detention review. Given the imminent likelihood of removal, the court granted the TRO and imposed a stay of removal pending a ruling on the underlying habeas petition. The court denied the petitioner's separate request for an expedited hearing on the matter. No details regarding the petitioner's nationality, family circumstances, employment, or the location of his detention were provided in this order.

A man detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his arrest and continued detention. The government argued he was lawfully held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), the expedited removal statute, but the court found that provision did not apply because he was not 'arriving in the United States.' The court instead determined his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which applies to noncitizens present in the country without admission. He was being held at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility. The court granted his habeas petition, ordering his immediate release, and directed the government to provide him a bond hearing before an immigration judge within ten days. The court denied the government's request to impose monitoring equipment on him pending that hearing. The government was also ordered to file a status report on the outcome of the bond hearing.

The petitioner is currently detained at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, Texas. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The court ordered federal respondents to file a response within 7 days addressing the date he entered the United States, whether he was previously apprehended and released by immigration authorities, and the current status of his immigration or removal proceedings. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file a reply within 7 days after the response is filed. The document does not provide further details regarding his nationality, family circumstances, or the specifics of his apprehension.

Patricia, a 19-year-old Honduran woman living in Austin, was separated from her 8-month-old breastfeeding son after she called 911 to report abuse by her boyfriend but was instead arrested on an assault charge. Prosecutors later dismissed the charge, but ICE took her into custody and held her nearly six weeks at the South Texas Detention Complex, where she suffered painful, swollen breasts and pleaded for a breast pump while her son stayed with a family friend. Patricia said she fled Honduras two years earlier after being raped by a gang member who continued to harass her, and that she had sought asylum in the U.S. Attorneys with the nonprofit American Gateways sued for her release, and U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia in San Antonio ruled that the government had violated the Constitution by detaining her without a hearing, ordering ICE to release her within two days. She was reunited with her son, but still faces a deportation order that her lawyers are appealing.

Blerim Skoro, a 55-year-old Kosovo-born cab driver from Staten Island with an American wife and three children, was detained by ICE agents on August 3 while checking in at an immigration office in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Skoro says he spent years working as a confidential informant for U.S. intelligence agencies, infiltrating al-Qaeda training camps in Pakistan and helping secure convictions of members of al Qaeda, al Shabaab and Hezbollah. In November 2022 a federal judge granted him deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture after finding he faced risk of torture and death if returned to Kosovo. His wife, Susan Skoro, said he was taken away after checking in at the front desk, and his former attorney and his taxi union's executive director described him as having led a law-abiding life and performed courageous work for the United States. His attorney, Joshua Dratel, filed a habeas corpus petition arguing ICE detained him without first seeking required judicial permission, and the case has proceeded through expedited briefing in federal court.

A Chinese national entered the United States on a B-2 visitor visa in February 2026, authorized to stay until August 6, 2026. His spouse filed an asylum application in late July 2026 naming him as a derivative beneficiary. On August 24, 2026, after his visa had expired, he appeared with his spouse and children at a USCIS-directed biometrics appointment, where ICE officers arrested him. DHS issued a Notice to Appear alleging removability and detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, where he remained held for about three weeks with no bond hearing yet held. He filed a habeas corpus petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order arguing his detention without a prompt neutral hearing violated due process and seeking immediate release. The court denied the habeas petition, finding he had not shown a due process violation because this was his first ICE detention and he had not yet sought or been denied a bond hearing, and denied the TRO motion as moot.

A man who has lived in the United States since January 2008 was apprehended by immigration authorities in Las Vegas, Nevada in August 2026 and is currently held at the Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada. He is charged with having entered the United States without inspection or parole and is not in expedited removal proceedings, is not subject to mandatory detention based on criminal charges, and has no final or reinstated removal order against him. He has a prior DUI conviction but no other criminal history noted. He has not yet requested a bond hearing before an Immigration Court. As a member of the certified class in Jacobo-Ramirez v. Mullin, he filed a habeas corpus petition asserting that he is being unlawfully detained because DHS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review have failed to comply with the court's declaratory judgment requiring bond-hearing consideration under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). He asks the court to order his release within one day or, alternatively, to require a bond hearing within seven days.

The petitioner, an immigration detainee held in ICE custody at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, was arrested on August 24, 2026. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus along with a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release, arguing his detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. Respondents failed to file an opposition by the court-ordered deadline, and when they eventually responded, they stated they were not presenting an opposition argument and consented to relief being granted. The court granted the habeas petition, finding the detention unlawful, and ordered Respondents to immediately release him in the same position he was in before his arrest, including return of his documents and possessions. The court also enjoined Respondents from re-detaining him unless a hearing before a neutral arbitrator determines re-incarceration would be lawful, and barred placing him on GPS or electronic monitoring upon release. Judgment was entered in his favor and the case was closed.

The petitioner, a citizen of Armenia, entered the United States in 2021 on a visitor visa and has had an application for asylum and withholding of removal pending since October 2023. He was detained by ICE on August 22, 2026. On August 29, 2026, he filed a Motion to Schedule Initial Bond Redetermination Hearing in Immigration Court. He then filed a federal habeas petition and an emergency TRO application seeking immediate release or, alternatively, an order requiring prompt resolution of his bond hearing request. Respondents disputed his claim that he was arrested without a warrant, providing evidence of an arrest warrant, but conceded he appears entitled to a bond hearing under recent Ninth Circuit precedent. The district court denied the TRO application, finding no imminent irreparable harm and noting the case would proceed on an expedited habeas briefing schedule.

Jianxian Yu, a 52-year-old asylum seeker from China who has lived in the United States since December 2019, was arrested by ICE immediately after attending a scheduled interview on his pending asylum application at a USCIS office in Tustin, California on April 9, 2026. He had entered lawfully on a B-2 visitor visa, filed for asylum in 2021, and was granted employment authorization while his case remained pending; during his time in the U.S. he started his own business, held a valid driver's license, paid taxes, and became an active member of his church, being baptized in 2025. He had no criminal convictions and had complied with all immigration appointments. His arrest was based on a claimed foreign warrant referral from Chinese authorities, though the government never submitted the warrant or supporting evidence, and his notice to appear listed only a visa overstay. An immigration judge denied him bond on April 29, 2026, citing flight risk, after which he was transferred to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. Yu filed a federal habeas petition arguing his detention violated due process, and on August 21, 2026, a magistrate judge granted the petition, ordering his immediate release and barring re-detention without prior notice and a hearing; the case was then dismissed with prejudice.

The petitioner entered the United States without inspection in June 2021 and was apprehended by immigration authorities upon arrival. He was released on parole about two weeks later. On or about August 21, 2026, he was re-detained by immigration authorities. He is currently held at the Golden State Annex Detention Center. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his renewed detention. Respondents conceded the case was not materially distinguishable from prior rulings by the same court. The court granted the habeas petition, ordering his immediate release on the same conditions as before his re-detention, and enjoined the government from re-detaining him without notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before an immigration judge, at which the government must justify detention by clear and convincing evidence.

The petitioner is an immigration detainee who filed a habeas corpus petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order in federal court. The court had previously ordered respondents to show whether any facts distinguished this case from its prior rulings on detention. Respondents conceded that a recent Ninth Circuit decision established that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies to individuals in the petitioner's circumstances, meaning he is entitled to a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. The court granted the habeas petition and ordered that he receive a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter within ten days. The order requires 72 hours' written notice of the hearing in a language he understands, allows for representation by an attorney, and requires the decisionmaker to consider his financial circumstances and alternative release conditions. If no bond hearing is held within the deadline, respondents must release him. He is currently held at the Golden State Annex detention facility.

Andrés, a Colombian immigrant living in College Point, Queens, was driving his wife and 6-year-old daughter home from getting food in late June when masked ICE agents in unmarked cars boxed in his vehicle and ordered him out. Agents used a vehicle registration lookup on his New Jersey plates to confirm his identity and immigration status before arresting him, even though he had no criminal history, a valid work permit, and an upcoming immigration court date. He spent about three weeks at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn before a federal judge ordered his release following a habeas corpus lawsuit. Since his release, his daughter has continued to break down in tears, and he now carries copies of his release papers in case he is stopped again.

Pedro Joaquin Aviles-Mena, a Nicaraguan citizen, was detained at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2022 and subsequently released on parole. After living and working in the United States for more than two years, he was re-detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at a scheduled check-in. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and sought a temporary restraining order, arguing his re-detention violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment and that mandatory detention under the expedited removal statute no longer applied to him once he had been paroled into the country. A federal judge granted the temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction ordering his release, finding he had raised a serious question on the merits and enjoining the government from re-detaining him. On August 20, 2026, the court granted his habeas petition on the merits, ruling that he may not be re-detained without notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker absent a material change in circumstances.

The petitioner, who had previously been released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole, was re-detained by immigration authorities on August 20, 2026. She is currently held at the California City Detention Facility. She filed a habeas corpus petition and motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that her re-detention without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter violated the Due Process Clause. The government did not identify any facts or legal arguments distinguishing her case from several prior rulings in the same district finding such re-detentions unconstitutional. The court agreed, finding that the proper remedy for the government's failure to provide a constitutionally compliant hearing was her immediate release. The court ordered her released under the same conditions that applied before her August 20 detention, barred additional restrictions like electronic monitoring absent a future hearing, and required at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing before any future re-detention.

Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak ordered a habeas petitioner released after finding that ICE agents had violated an injunction issued by Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson requiring agents to meet probable cause requirements before making warrantless arrests. Varholak wrote that the case was 'one in a series' in which the Department of Homeland Security 'appears to have simply ignored the law and detained an individual in violation of the law,' noting the government could not defend the decision. He set a hearing for September 10 for the government to address its 'apparent repeated violation of the law.'

Carlos Rodríguez López, a 35-year-old Cuban man who lived in Miami Gardens after 16 months in ICE detention, was placed on an August 20 deportation flight to Liberia under a U.S.-Liberia removal agreement. He and other detainees refused to disembark, arguing Liberia was not their country and would endanger them; Liberian authorities also refused to accept them. Instead of returning to the U.S. as expected, the plane was diverted to Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, where Rodríguez López and roughly 40 other deportees were met by masked police, searched, and taken to a hotel without passports or legal assistance. His wife, Igrayne Ribot Hernández, a U.S. citizen who runs a family business in Miami Gardens and has a nine-year-old daughter with him, said he had rebuilt his life after serving an 11-month sentence for a prior conviction and called the deportation to a country with no ties to him unlawful and inhumane. A habeas corpus petition filed in November 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana remains unresolved, and Rodríguez López told Univision by video call that he considers the diversion an illegal deportation.

A Mexican asylum seeker previously placed in removal proceedings had been released by immigration authorities on his own recognizance and complied with all required immigration court hearings and check-ins. His asylum application was pretermitted and he was ordered removed in March 2026, but he timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals in April 2026, meaning there was no final removal order against him. Despite this, ICE re-detained him during a routine check-in in San Francisco. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and sought a temporary restraining order, arguing that his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated his due process rights. A federal court found he raised a serious question on the merits and that the balance of hardships favored him, granting the TRO and ordering his release by 10:00 a.m. the next day while barring further detention without a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The government was ordered to file a status report confirming his release and to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

The petitioner, who was previously detained by immigration authorities and then released on his own recognizance, was later re-detained by ICE. Respondents argued he was held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), but acknowledged that recent Ninth Circuit precedent establishes that § 1226(a) actually governs his detention, meaning he is entitled to seek a custody redetermination. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his detention. The court found that his prior release created a liberty interest in continued release, and that his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. The court granted the habeas petition, ordering his immediate release on the same conditions as before his re-detention, and enjoined respondents from re-detaining him without first providing notice and a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot given the grant of habeas relief.