Human Impact Project

A Guatemalan teenager who fled to the US in 2022 at age 16 to escape domestic violence has lived in the country for about four years. He was initially processed as an unaccompanied minor, held by DHS/ORR, and released to his aunt, a vetted sponsor, after being deemed neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. He currently lives in Daly City with his mother, works at a Korean restaurant, and has no criminal history. On August 10, 2026, four ICE officers arrested him outside his home, handcuffed him despite his complaints of pain, and drove him to a parking structure where he was pressured to sign a document. He filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a TRO motion challenging the lawfulness of his detention and seeking release plus protection from re-detention without notice and a hearing. The court found he was likely to succeed on his procedural due process claims and granted the TRO, ordering his immediate release, barring removal or transfer out of the district, and setting a show cause hearing for August 24, 2026.

The petitioner, who had lived in the United States for years while complying with ICE check-ins and other alternative-to-detention requirements, was taken into ICE custody on August 8, 2026 when he voluntarily appeared for a scheduled ICE check-in. He had maintained a known residence and employment and remained continuously available to immigration authorities for nearly three years prior to his detention. Immigration officials claimed he violated the conditions of his prior release on an order of recognizance after being arrested for public intoxication on July 28, 2026, though no criminal charges were ever filed and he was not notified of any alleged violation until his check-in. He was previously released under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is currently held at a detention facility while pursuing a federal habeas corpus petition and motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his re-detention without a pre-deprivation bond hearing. The court found the government failed to identify any exigency justifying detention without prior process and ruled his re-detention violated due process. The court granted the habeas petition and TRO, ordering his immediate release under the same conditions as before his detention, with no additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless later deemed necessary at a hearing.

Marco Uriel Rodriguez Hernandez, an immigration detainee, had won a finding that the government was unlawfully denying him a bond hearing. He was then transferred out of the privately run Aurora detention center to an unknown location and later found to be held in Texas. After his attorney, Skylar M. Larson, filed a new habeas petition, Colorado's Chief Federal Judge Daniel D. Domenico issued a temporary restraining order barring ICE from removing him, and the order was emailed to federal prosecutors. Despite this, ICE deported Rodriguez Hernandez to Mexico the following morning without allowing him to contact his attorney. Government attorneys said officials in Texas who carried out the removal were unaware of the court's order and said they 'greatly regret the error.' Domenico ordered the government to take all available steps to facilitate his return to the United States.

A Venezuelan woman who entered the United States without authorization in September 2023 was ordered removed by an immigration judge in March 2026; her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remains pending. She was detained by ICE on August 6, 2026 following a routine traffic stop and has since been held at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana. She filed a pro se habeas petition alleging that her prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates due process, that her warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, that a serious medical condition has been aggravated by her detention, and that her detention imposes a hardship on her minor children. She sought immediate release or, alternatively, an emergency individualized bond hearing, along with a temporary restraining order barring her removal or transfer while the petition is pending. The court denied the emergency motion, finding that the request for a bond hearing sought the ultimate relief of the habeas petition itself and that claims of imminent removal or transfer were speculative.

A 29-year-old Mexican national who had lived in the U.S. since December 2024 on a nonimmigrant visa was arrested by immigration authorities on August 6, 2026, after overstaying his visa's authorized period, which had expired in June 2025. He had been residing with his fiancée, a U.S. citizen and homeowner, and was pursuing English classes and pilot training, with no criminal convictions. Following his arrest, he was placed in removal proceedings and detained at the Adelanto Detention Facility, where he remained held without ever receiving a bond hearing. He filed a habeas petition arguing his detention without an individualized custody determination violated due process, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking immediate release or a constitutionally adequate bond hearing with a heightened evidentiary burden on the government. The court found he was subject to standard detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was not entitled to release or a heightened bond standard, but ordered that he be released unless given a new bond hearing within seven days.

Ibrahim Mohammed, a 43-year-old Ethiopian national who legally entered the U.S. in 2014 and was granted asylum, was ordered deported following a child sexual abuse conviction. Federal officials attempted to deport him to third countries (Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, and Central African Republic) rather than his country of origin. U.S. District Judge John W. deGravelles ordered Mohammed released from Angola's Camp 57 immigration detention facility in February after finding ICE had no viable deportation plan and violated his due process rights. Despite the judge's explicit warnings and orders, ICE agents rearrested Mohammed twice more in subsequent months—in April after two African nations agreed to accept him, and again last week in Maryland—each time failing to serve required deportation papers or conduct credible fear interviews. Judge deGravelles held a hearing on whether to hold DHS officials in civil contempt for repeatedly defying his court orders.

A citizen of India entered the United States without inspection near Yuma, Arizona in December 2022 and was briefly detained before being released on parole and enrolled in an Alternatives to Detention program. He was issued a Notice to Appear in February 2023 charging him as removable, and he timely filed an asylum application while obtaining employment, developing community ties, and maintaining a clean criminal record. On August 5, 2026, he was taken into ICE custody after reporting to ICE offices, following multiple alleged violations of his Alternatives to Detention conditions dating back to 2023. He is currently detained at the Golden State Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing his detention without a prior hearing violated his due process rights and seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. The government argued he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court found that § 1226(a) governs his detention instead, granted the habeas petition in part, denied the TRO as moot, and ordered an individualized bond hearing within 14 days where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community.

A citizen of India who entered the U.S. in December 2022 and was released on parole under Alternatives to Detention has lived in the country for nearly four years, maintaining stable employment and strong ties to his Sikh community. He filed an asylum application in April 2023, which remains pending, and obtained work authorization valid through October 2028, complying with all ATD monitoring requirements and having no criminal history. On August 5, 2026, he was swept up when Deportation Officers assisting the FBI executed a search warrant at an apartment in Antelope, California—an address that was not his own residence, as his driver's license lists a Sacramento address. Although an I-213 noted he was 'identified as being part of an active shooting investigation,' the record contains no evidence connecting him to the shooting, and officers instead ran a biometrics check, determined he lacked lawful status, and arrested him on an administrative warrant. He was issued a Notice to Appear and detained at the Golden State Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California, without a prior hearing. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing his detention without notice or a hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court agreed, granted the habeas petition, ordered his immediate release, and enjoined the government from re-detaining him absent seven days' notice and a bond hearing demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a flight risk or danger to the community.

A Guatemalan man who has lived in the United States since 2018 and works as a waiter in Baltimore, Maryland, was detained by ICE officials in Maryland on August 5, 2026. He was subsequently transferred to the Caroline Detention Center in Virginia, where he remained held for about three weeks. DHS classified him as an 'applicant for admission' under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a), subjecting him to mandatory detention without bond under § 1225(b)(2). He filed a habeas corpus petition arguing this classification violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, his due process rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and sought release and a bond hearing. The federal court found that because he was already present in the U.S. rather than arriving at the border, his detention was governed by the discretionary detention provisions of § 1226(a). The court granted his petition, ordering his prompt release and a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within 14 days, and enjoined the government from re-detaining him absent specified circumstances.

The petitioner, a citizen of India who entered the United States in July 2025 at around age 20, had a pending asylum application filed with USCIS in October 2025 and had been granted employment authorization valid through December 2027. In March 2026, his guardian petitioned a California state court for guardianship, which was granted in May 2026 after the court found that reunification with his parents was not viable due to abandonment and that returning him to India was not in his best interest. Based on those findings, he submitted a special immigrant juvenile status petition to USCIS. On August 5, 2026, ICE detained him at a residence where federal law enforcement was executing a search warrant during an active shooting investigation, though he was not accused of any crime. He filed a habeas corpus petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his detention as a due process violation, arguing he had a protected liberty interest given his sanctioned presence in the country. The court agreed, finding his circumstances similar to a prior case where a detainee's employment authorization constituted government sanctioning of his continued presence, and ordered a bond hearing. The court required the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community, and denied the TRO motion as moot given the bond hearing order.

The petitioner was re-detained by immigration authorities on August 5, 2026, after previously having been released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole. He was held at the Golden State Annex Detention Facility without being afforded a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 along with a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that his continued detention without such a hearing violated his due process rights. The government conceded there were no meaningful factual or legal distinctions between his case and several prior cases in which the court had granted similar relief, and did not oppose the court ruling on the petition without a hearing. The court found that his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that the Due Process Clause required a pre-deprivation bond hearing before re-detention. The court granted the habeas petition and TRO, ordering his immediate release under the same conditions that applied before his August 5 detention, and required at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing before any future re-detention.

José Eliezer Martinez-Andino, a 20-year-old Honduran man, was deported to Honduras in April 2026 after being detained while traveling to Seattle, despite holding Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) granted in 2023. He had been living in Raleigh with relatives and is the father of a three-year-old U.S.-born child. In June 2026, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell ordered DHS to return him to the U.S. and restore his legal status. Martinez-Andino returned on August 5, 2026, but was flown to a detention facility in Harlingen, Texas rather than North Carolina, where he remains detained awaiting legal relief.

Jose Eliezer Martinez-Andino, a 20-year-old Honduran who came to the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor in 2020 and held Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, was detained by immigration officers in March while traveling through Montana for his job as an auto mechanic in Raleigh, North Carolina. Despite holding legal status that should have protected him from removal, he was held across multiple detention centers for over 10 days without access to his attorneys and was coerced into signing voluntary departure paperwork he says was never properly explained. He was deported to Honduras on April 10, separating him from his young U.S. citizen daughter. Federal Judge Beryl Howell found he had likely been denied due process and ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return. He was flown to McAllen, Texas in August but was then held for weeks by CBP and ICE at the Port Isabel Detention Center before his lawyers reached a settlement securing his release, allowing him to return to Raleigh to reunite with his family.

Amy Lucia López Belloza, a 19-year-old Babson College freshman, was detained by ICE at Boston Logan Airport on November 20, 2025, while trying to board a flight to Texas for a family Thanksgiving reunion. A federal judge issued an emergency order the next day blocking her removal and barring her transfer outside Massachusetts for 72 hours, but ICE transferred her to Texas that evening and deported her to Honduras on November 22, a country she had not visited since childhood. The Trump administration later apologized in court for violating the judicial order but argued the violation should not affect her deportation case. In February 2026, the government offered her a return flight to the United States, which she declined out of fear of being detained again, and her habeas corpus lawsuit was dismissed in March 2026. Her case is part of a broader pattern of detentions and deportations of international scholars and students at U.S. airports.

An immigration detainee who had previously been ordered released from ICE custody in a prior habeas case was re-detained by ICE on August 4, 2026, when he appeared for a scheduled ICE check-in appointment. He had resided at his known address, remained available to the government, and appeared for his scheduled ICE appointments after his earlier release. The re-detention stemmed from an in-absentia removal order issued after ICE mistakenly provided the Immigration Court with the address of the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department instead of his home address, causing him to never receive notice of a June 29, 2026 hearing. He was detained without advance notice, an individualized determination justifying re-detention, or any opportunity to contest it. After learning of the error, he sought reopening of his case, and on August 22, 2026, the Immigration Court granted his motion to reopen and rescinded the in-absentia removal order due to lack of notice. Despite this, ICE maintained he would remain detained and could only request another bond hearing, prompting him to file a new federal habeas petition seeking immediate release. The court granted the unopposed petition, ordering his immediate release without restrictions such as reporting requirements, GPS, or electronic monitoring, and enjoined ICE from re-detaining him absent strict compliance with due process.

A woman who has lived continuously in the United States for approximately 21 years was arrested in the interior of the country and is now detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. She is being held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), which subjects her to mandatory detention, rather than being given an individualized custody determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). She filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing. She also filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order, arguing that continued detention constitutes irreparable harm and expressing concern that she could be transferred to another facility without notice. The court denied the TRO application without prejudice, finding she had not shown the kind of imminent, irreparable harm required to bypass the district's standard expedited briefing schedule for immigration habeas petitions. The court noted that a general order already requires the government to give at least two days' notice before transferring her out of the district, and that she could seek emergency relief if such a transfer were announced. Respondents were ordered to file an answer to the habeas petition by August 11, 2026, after which the matter will be submitted for decision.

The petitioners, a mother and her adult daughter, entered the United States in March 2014 and later applied for asylum, which was denied; they were ordered removed in December 2015, and their appeal was dismissed in 2017. The mother married a U.S. citizen in May 2022, and her husband filed I-130 relative petitions for both her and her daughter in August 2023. Their I-130 interviews were scheduled for August 5, 2026 at the USCIS Field Office in Portland, Oregon. Fearing that ICE would detain and deport them at that interview based on broader administration enforcement policies rather than an individualized assessment, they filed a habeas corpus petition and sought a temporary restraining order. They argued detention and removal would violate their Fifth Amendment due process rights and would preempt a motion to reopen their removal proceedings. The court found a reasonable likelihood they would be detained and quickly transferred out of Oregon, which lacks an immigration detention facility, potentially undermining its jurisdiction. The court issued an order under the All Writs Act barring the government from arresting, detaining, or deporting the petitioners during the pendency of the case, and denied the TRO motion as moot given this relief.

A 54-year-old citizen of India who has lived in the United States for over three decades is being held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center. His wife and their two children are American citizens. He entered the U.S. without inspection in 1992 and has a removal order that became final in 2014; ICE placed him on an Order of Supervision in 2016. He was first re-detained in May 2026, and a federal judge granted habeas relief in June 2026, ordering his release and barring ICE from re-detaining him for invalid reasons or no reason at all. ICE nonetheless re-detained him again in August 2026, citing his final removal order, a valid travel document, and a misdemeanor assault charge — though court records show that charge was closed without any charges being filed. He was promised an informal interview two days after detention but did not receive one until ten days later. He filed a new habeas petition and motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing ICE violated his due process rights by failing to follow its own revocation regulations.

A Venezuelan man who was paroled into the United States in September 2023 was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on August 3, 2026, following a traffic stop. An immigration judge had ordered him removed to Venezuela on July 13, 2026, but he is pursuing an appeal of that removal order, so it is not yet final. He is held at the North Florida Detention Facility. He filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing he was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and sought immediate release. The court agreed, finding that because he was not seeking entry at the border when re-detained, he was not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225 and was instead entitled to an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a). The court granted the petition, ordering respondents to either provide him a bond hearing within seven days or release him, and denied the government's motion to dismiss.

A citizen of Mali who has lived in the United States since January 2001 was granted withholding of removal to Mali by an immigration judge in March 2013. He was detained by immigration officials on August 3, 2026 during a routine check-in, at which point he was given a Notice of Imminent Removal indicating he would instead be removed to Cameroon. He alleges he expressed a fear of persecution in Cameroon and requested a third-country screening interview with his immigration counsel present. He is currently detained at the Alexandria Staging Facility, where officials told him removal was scheduled for August 19, 2026. He filed a habeas petition alleging due process violations for being denied an opportunity to challenge his removal to Cameroon, along with an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt his removal. The court denied the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to stay the removal and that he failed to provide evidence, such as travel documents, substantiating that removal was truly imminent.