Ohio ICE detention · Updated September 2026
If an immigration judge told your family there is no jurisdiction to set bond because the person entered without inspection, that reasoning is contrary to binding Sixth Circuit precedent. On May 11, 2026 the Sixth Circuit held in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft that people who entered without inspection and established residence here are detained under INA § 236(a) — with the right to an individualized bond hearing. Ohio is in the Sixth Circuit.
This guide covers how bond actually works — amounts, who can post it, how payment and refunds run — what the law now requires in Ohio, and what to do at each stage if bond is denied anyway.
Time matters more here than almost anywhere else in immigration law. A custody appeal to the Board is generally due within 30 days. Detention continues while the paperwork moves. This page is general information, not legal advice about your case.
On May 11, 2026 the Sixth Circuit decided Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft — published, consolidated Nos. 25-1965, 25-1969, 25-1978 and 25-1982. The court held that INA § 235(b)(2)(A) does not apply to people who entered without inspection and then established residence in the United States. They are not “seeking admission.” Their detention falls under INA § 236(a), which carries the right to an individualized bond hearing.
Ohio is in the Sixth Circuit. A precedential Board decision binds immigration judges only where no controlling circuit authority says otherwise. Matter of Yajure Hurtado no longer governs here.
If someone was denied a bond hearing in Ohio on the reasoning that they entered without inspection and are therefore subject to mandatory detention, that reasoning is contrary to binding circuit precedent.
In July 2025 DHS issued guidance instructing ICE to treat people arrested inside the United States — often years or decades after entry — as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 235(b)(2)(A). That broke with roughly 29 years of consistent practice under § 1226(a), across administrations of both parties. On September 5, 2025 the Board made the new reading binding on immigration judges in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216.
Habeas petitions followed immediately, in volume. By early 2026 hundreds of district judges had ruled, the large majority against the government. The courts of appeals then began deciding, and in Lopez-Campos the Sixth Circuit affirmed Michigan district court habeas grants and joined the Second and Eleventh Circuits.
The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning is worth knowing because it is what a brief in Ohio now argues from. “Seeking admission” carries its ordinary meaning: someone who has lived here for a decade is not presently seeking to enter. Congress knew how to limit mandatory detention to arriving noncitizens and used that language elsewhere in IIRIRA, but not in § 235(b)(2)(A). And the government’s own unbroken 29-year practice of applying § 1226(a) to this group cut against its new position. The court also recognised serious Fifth Amendment due process problems with detaining long-term residents without an individualized hearing.
Hearings are being held. Bond is still being denied. In our experience the problem in Cleveland has not been refusal to hold a hearing — it is that the hearing happens, the equities are heard, and bond is denied anyway, sometimes still on jurisdictional reasoning and sometimes on a flight-risk finding that treats manner of entry as decisive.
After Lopez-Campos, a jurisdictional denial in Ohio is contrary to controlling circuit authority. That is a strong posture for federal habeas in the district of confinement — the Northern District of Ohio for Youngstown, Cleveland, Chardon, Tiffin and Stryker; the Southern District for Butler County.
Either way, submit the full equities package at the bond hearing and ask for a written decision stating the statutory basis. Whether the judge denied for want of jurisdiction or denied on the merits determines which federal argument is strongest, and the record you build at that hearing is what the petition rests on.
There is now a circuit split. The Second, Third, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have rejected the government’s reading; the Fifth and Eighth have been more receptive. The Third Circuit affirmed habeas relief on August 28, 2026. The Fifth Circuit panel decision has been vacated and the case set for rehearing en banc.
Separately, the nationwide class litigation in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz produced relief in December 2025 and February 2026 that the Ninth Circuit stayed on March 31, 2026 — so that class relief is not currently operative outside the Central District of California. In Ohio it does not matter much either way, because Lopez-Campos is binding circuit precedent and is the stronger authority.
A split this clean, on a question the Supreme Court expressly left open in Jennings v. Rodriguez, makes Supreme Court review likely. Until then the law differs by circuit, and Ohio sits on the favourable side of it.
Families often picture a criminal trial. It is nothing like one. A bond hearing is short, document-driven, and usually conducted by video from the detention facility.
The immigration judge, who decides. An ICE attorney from the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, who represents the government and is not neutral. Your attorney, if you have one — there is no appointed counsel. An interpreter, if requested in advance.
The detained person usually appears by video from the facility rather than in person. Family members can attend at the court in Cleveland; hearings are open to the public with limited exceptions.
Often fifteen to thirty minutes. The judge confirms identity, notes what has been filed, hears argument on danger and flight risk, and frequently rules from the bench.
It is separate from the removal case. Nothing is decided about asylum, cancellation or any relief — only whether the person is released while that case proceeds. Bond evidence is also not bound by formal rules of evidence.
Live testimony is possible but uncommon. When it happens it is usually the sponsor — the person offering a home — confirming the address, the relationship and their own status, or occasionally the detained person speaking briefly.
In most cases a signed declaration does the same work more reliably. A sponsor who is nervous, whose English is limited, or whose own status is uncertain can be cross-examined by the ICE attorney. Consider carefully before putting someone on.
The documents. A tabbed, indexed packet filed before the hearing does more than anything said at it. Judges are working through a detained docket and the case that is easiest to grant is the one where the evidence is organised and the argument is already written down.
This is why the exhibit packet matters more than advocacy on the day.
There is no statutory deadline. A custody redetermination can be requested at any time before a final removal order, orally or in writing, so in principle it can be asked for immediately after the Notice to Appear is served.
In practice the timing is driven by the court’s detained calendar, not by how fast a family files. Expect the sequence to run: days to assemble the exhibit packet, then scheduling after the motion is filed, then the hearing itself. Where a continuance is granted or the person is transferred, it takes longer.
Transfers. The single biggest disruptor. Someone moved to a facility in another state loses their place in the queue and may change jurisdiction entirely — which also changes where a habeas petition must be filed.
Waiting for a perfect packet. A common and costly mistake. File with what you have and supplement. Time detained is not neutral.
Continuances on the government’s motion, and appeals. A custody appeal to the Board adds months, during which detention continues.
Delay is also an argument. Prolonged detention is not only hardship. The due process concerns the Sixth Circuit recognised in Lopez-Campos grow stronger the longer someone is held without a meaningful individualized determination. Keep a dated record of every filing, every continuance and every transfer — time detained becomes evidence.
After Lopez-Campos, an Ohio immigration judge cannot say there is no authority to set bond. So the denials have moved — from jurisdiction to discretion. The hearing is held, and bond is denied on a finding of flight risk or danger to the community made with little evidence and less analysis.
This is the pattern we see most often now, and it is where these cases are won and lost.
Bond under INA § 236(a) calls for an individualized determination. The respondent carries the burden of showing they are not a danger and not a flight risk, but the judge must still make a reasoned decision on the record actually before them.
Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006) sets out a non-exhaustive list of relevant factors: family ties, length of residence, employment history, immigration history, criminal record, manner of entry, and the likelihood that relief will be granted. They are weighed, not treated as boxes that decide the case by themselves.
If entering without inspection were itself enough to establish flight risk, every person the Sixth Circuit just held entitled to a bond hearing would lose that hearing automatically — and the right the court recognised would be worth nothing.
The facts the Sixth Circuit found significant in rejecting mandatory detention cut the same way on discretion: these are people who established residence, who have been here for years, with families, jobs and fixed addresses. That is the opposite of a flight-risk profile. A denial treating the entry as decisive is in tension with the decision that made the hearing possible.
Submit the equities in writing and in evidence, indexed and tabbed, before the hearing — not as oral argument. A judge can disregard an assertion. A judge who disregards a documented record creates a reviewable problem.
They are distinct findings requiring distinct evidence. If there is a criminal record, meet it directly: the actual disposition, how long ago, what has changed since. If there is none, say so explicitly and make the judge confront it. On flight risk, put the appearance history in evidence.
Request a written order stating the statutory basis and the findings. Where the ruling is oral, obtain the recording or transcript. You cannot challenge reasoning you cannot produce — and this is the difference between arguing the judge was wrong and showing the judge did not analyse anything.
A custody appeal to the Board is generally due within 30 days. The Board reviews facts for clear error and law de novo. The strongest framing is usually not that the factors were weighed wrongly but that they were not weighed at all — no individualized determination, no reasoned consideration, nothing permitting meaningful review.
A motion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 has two halves. After Lopez-Campos the legal half is short. The evidence half is where the case is decided.
Offering conditions gives the judge a middle path between release and continued detention.
Jurisdiction under § 236(a), citing Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft as controlling in the Sixth Circuit. Then the Guerra factors addressed one at a time, each tied to a specific exhibit, rather than as narrative.
Keep it short. The work is in the tabs.
Appearance history. It is the most directly probative evidence on flight risk and it is left out constantly. Every kept check-in and attended hearing should be documented.
Eligibility for relief. Someone with a pending petition has a concrete reason to appear. Guerra treats the likelihood of relief as relevant, and it is the strongest available answer to a flight-risk finding built on manner of entry.
Two separate things have to happen. A judge has to set a bond amount, and someone has to pay it to ICE. They involve different agencies, different forms and different people.
If bond is available at all, an immigration judge sets the amount after weighing flight risk and danger to the community. The statutory minimum for a delivery bond is ,500, and there is no maximum. Amounts commonly run from a few thousand dollars to ,000 or more.
What moves the number: length of residence, family in the United States, steady employment, a fixed address, prior compliance with immigration appointments, and criminal history or its absence. What is written down and provable moves it. What is merely asserted does not.
The person who posts bond is the obligor. They must be at least 18 and, in practice, a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident with valid identification. Someone without status will be turned away, and should not accompany the obligor.
Names must match exactly across identification, bank account and the bond system. Mismatches are a common cause of delay.
ICE processes bonds through CeBONDS, its electronic system. The obligor creates an account, verifies identity, enters the detainee’s A-number, and pays the full amount by Fedwire or ACH. Fedwire clears fastest; ACH can add a day.
In-person posting at an ERO Bond Acceptance Facility generally requires a cashier’s check or money order for the full amount. Cash is not accepted. Bonds are typically processed on weekdays, roughly 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. local time. ICE bond information.
Form I-352 is the bond agreement — the only document stating the actual terms. Form I-305 is the receipt, and the obligor must keep the original.
When the case ends, ICE issues Form I-391, the bond cancellation. The obligor sends the I-391 with the original I-305 to the DHS Debt Management Center in Williston, Vermont to recover the money. Refunds typically take about four weeks from there and often longer.
If the I-305 is lost, a notarised Form I-395 affidavit substitutes. Report any address change to ICE promptly — a notice that never arrives is the most common reason a refund stalls.
Paying a middleman. Only ICE collects immigration bonds. Be extremely careful with anyone asking for bond money in cash, and remember that a notario is not a lawyer.
Using a bond company without understanding the cost. A licensed surety typically charges a non-refundable premium of 10–20% plus collateral. On a ,000 bond that is ,000–,000 you never get back, versus a cash bond that is refunded in full if the conditions are met.
Missing a hearing after release. The bond is forfeited under INA § 236(b), a removal order is generally entered in absentia, and ICE can re-detain. Release is not the end of the case.
Five dates explain why bond was denied to people who would have received it two years ago — and why that changed in Ohio.
DHS interim guidance. ICE instructed to treat noncitizens arrested inside the United States as applicants for admission under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), breaking with 29 years of practice under § 1226(a).
Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA). Made the new reading binding on immigration judges nationwide. Bond hearings stopped for people who entered without inspection.
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. A California federal court certified a nationwide class and vacated Hurtado; the Ninth Circuit stayed those orders on March 31, 2026 outside the Central District of California. Docket.
Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft (6th Cir.). Controlling in Ohio. Section 235(b)(2)(A) does not reach people who entered without inspection and established residence; detention is under § 236(a) with the right to an individualized bond hearing. Joined the Second and Eleventh Circuits.
Circuit split, Supreme Court review likely. Second, Third, Sixth and Eleventh against the Fifth and Eighth; the Fifth Circuit is rehearing en banc. In Ohio, Lopez-Campos governs.
Statutes: 8 U.S.C. § 1226 · § 1225 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Board precedent: EOIR precedent decisions.
Maldonado Bautista binds the government as to certified class members. Ohio sits in the Sixth Circuit, so for someone who is not a class member the ruling is persuasive authority, not controlling precedent.
That distinction is where most of the fight happens. Establishing class membership, where it applies, is often the single most valuable early step.
Whatever the immigration court concludes about its own jurisdiction, a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asks a different question of a different judge: whether the detention itself is lawful.
Herman Legal Group has obtained release through habeas in the Northern District of Ohio after an immigration judge denied bond.
Commonly the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, the Mahoning County Justice Center, the Geauga County Safety Center in Chardon, the Seneca County Jail in Tiffin, the Butler County Jail in Hamilton, or the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio in Stryker.
Start with the ICE detainee locator, searching by A-number and country of birth rather than name. Transfers happen with little notice, including out of state.
Detained bond hearings for Ohio are held before immigration judges at the Cleveland Immigration Court, often by video from the facility rather than in person.
Criminal bond and immigration bond are different things. Posting one does not resolve the other.
Your procedural posture determines your leverage. These are the four situations people are usually in when they find this page.
This is the best position to be in, because the record can still be built properly.
Build the federal record early. What is preserved here determines what is available later.
This is the most common position right now, and the denial itself is useful — it is the record a federal petition is built on.
Federal habeas is usually the lead move, not the last resort. File under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement: the Northern District of Ohio for Youngstown, Cleveland, Chardon, Tiffin and Stryker; the Southern District for Butler County. The Ninth Circuit itself said these claims belong in habeas in the district where the person is held.
Run the administrative steps alongside it, for preservation rather than as the primary hope:
Get the written decision first. What the judge actually held — no jurisdiction, or jurisdiction but denied on the merits — determines which federal argument is strongest.
File a supplemental authority letter. Attach the federal decisions, establish class membership if it applies, and preserve both the statutory and the constitutional arguments explicitly.
The Board may not reverse quickly. Preservation is the point: what is not raised below is generally not available in federal court.
File a notice of supplemental authority and ask for specific relief — immediate release, or a bond hearing within a defined timeframe.
Expect the government to raise failure to exhaust, mootness, and the judicial review limits in § 1252. The answers are that constitutional claims remain reviewable, that ongoing detention is a continuing injury, and that a structural defect is not cured retroactively by a later hearing.
Since February 2026 the strategy has been procedural containment rather than defending Hurtado on the merits. Knowing the sequence in advance is most of the preparation.
Many immigration judges wrote some version of this. It does not automatically cure the defect.
If the judge believed jurisdiction was lacking, the record may be underdeveloped, the burden may have been allocated incorrectly, and the hearing may not have been genuinely adversarial. In federal court, the argument is structural error — not simply that the judge weighed the equities wrongly.
These are the things that take time to obtain and that no lawyer can create for you. Gathering them early is the most useful thing a family can do in the first days.
Identify the deadlines first. Before anything else, work out the date of the custody decision and count 30 days. Everything else can be assembled while the filing is prepared; a missed appeal deadline usually cannot be repaired.
A 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals decision that restricted immigration judge bond jurisdiction for certain people who entered the United States without inspection. The Board treated them as applicants for admission under INA § 235(b)(2), which it read as eliminating bond authority under INA § 236(a). Many detainees were denied bond hearings entirely as a result.
A federal class action in the Central District of California challenging the no-bond framework. The court certified a nationwide class, held that class members are detained under INA § 236(a), confirmed their right to bond hearings, and on February 18, 2026 issued an enforcement order vacating Hurtado in the class context.
Under current Sixth Circuit law, yes. In Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, decided May 11, 2026, the Sixth Circuit held that INA § 235(b)(2)(A) does not apply to people who entered without inspection and then established residence in the United States. Their detention falls under INA § 236(a), which carries the right to an individualized bond hearing. Ohio is in the Sixth Circuit, so that decision controls here and Matter of Yajure Hurtado does not.
That is now the common problem. Since judges can no longer deny for lack of jurisdiction in Ohio, denials have shifted to discretion — summary findings of flight risk or danger with little evidence or analysis. The responses are to build a documented record before the hearing, obtain a written decision or the recording, appeal to the Board within 30 days framed as a failure to make an individualized determination, and consider federal habeas where detention becomes prolonged.
The Ninth Circuit stayed it pending appeal on March 31, 2026, so the class relief and the vacatur of Hurtado are not currently operative outside the Central District of California. In Ohio it matters little either way, because Lopez-Campos is binding circuit precedent and is the stronger authority to rely on.
It depends on how the arrest occurred, whether detention is under INA § 236(a), whether mandatory detention under § 236(c) applies, and whether bond was denied on Hurtado reasoning. This requires reviewing the actual documents in the case.
Request a written decision, ask that it state the statutory basis, and preserve the issue for appeal or habeas. A motion to reconsider or a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may both be available. In Cleveland this situation has been common, and it is the point at which federal court usually becomes the more productive forum.
Generally 30 days from the custody decision to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Missing that deadline substantially narrows the options that remain.
In some circumstances, yes. On a habeas petition a federal court may order release, order a bond hearing within a set timeframe, or grant declaratory relief. The governing principles come from Zadvydas v. Davis and Jennings v. Rodriguez, among others.
The government may do this to argue the petition is moot. The question then becomes whether the hearing actually cures the constitutional defect. Where detention has been prolonged, or where the original proceeding was structurally compromised, arguments may remain and the federal court may retain jurisdiction.
Not automatically. If the judge believed jurisdiction was lacking, the evidentiary record may be incomplete, the burden of proof may not have been applied correctly, and the hearing may not have been fully adversarial. Those are structural due process arguments, and they survive into federal court.
Mandatory detention under INA § 236(c) is governed by different rules, so the Hurtado analysis does not directly apply. Two things are still worth checking: whether the classification is correct, because misclassification is common, and whether the length of detention has become constitutionally significant.
Commonly at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, the Mahoning County Justice Center, the Geauga County Safety Center in Chardon, the Seneca County Jail in Tiffin, the Butler County Jail in Hamilton, or the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio in Stryker. Use the ICE detainee locator with the A-number and country of birth, then confirm with the facility directly.
No. They are separate systems with separate decision-makers. Posting criminal bond does not release someone from ICE custody, and an immigration bond does not resolve a criminal case.
The written bond decision, the Notice to Appear, the A-number, the facility name, and any criminal court records with final dispositions. Then the equities: employment verification, lease or mortgage, proof of family ties, medical records where relevant, tax records and community support letters.
That the February 2026 order changed the legal landscape but not the practical one. Categorical bond denial is no longer secure, § 236(a) eligibility arguments are stronger, and constitutional limits have been reinforced — but relief still has to be sought, the government is contesting coverage aggressively, and the posture of your case determines which forum gives you leverage.
The families who do best in the first 72 hours are not the ones with the most money. They are the ones who decided in advance who would do what, and wrote it down while everyone was calm.
An ICE arrest removes the person who usually holds the information, the passwords, the documents and the income — all at once. Everything below is easier to arrange now than at 6 a.m. on the day it happens.
Keep one folder, in a place a trusted family member can reach without the detained person’s help, and a photographed copy in the cloud.
Memorised a phone number. A detained person with no memorised number, no phone and no money on a facility account can be very hard to reach. Pick one number and have everyone memorise it.
Kept the appearance record. Every ICE check-in kept, every hearing attended, with dates. It is the most persuasive flight-risk evidence there is, and almost nobody has it ready.
Detention is frightening, and the fear does not stop when the paperwork is filed. Families describe not sleeping, not eating properly, and struggling to function at work while trying to manage a case they do not understand. Children often understand more than adults assume.
A few things that genuinely help, from what clients tell us:
If you or someone in your family is in crisis, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline is available 24 hours a day by calling or texting 988, with Spanish-language service available.
Vania Stefanova heads Herman Legal Group’s Immigration Litigation Division. Her work includes removal defense and appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals — the forum where a custody appeal is filed.
Founder Richard T. Herman is admitted in Ohio, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the federal courts where Ohio habeas petitions and petitions for review are filed. The firm has obtained release through habeas after an immigration judge denied bond.
Have the A-number, the facility name, the written bond decision if there is one, and the date of any custody decision. An attorney can tell you which statute the detention rests on, whether class membership is arguable, which deadlines are running, and which forum gives you leverage.
Initial consultation: $200, up to one hour, by phone or video. Document review: $500, up to one hour. HLG does not offer free consultations. Requesting a consultation does not stop a deadline from running.
This area of law is moving, and the law differs by circuit. This page states Sixth Circuit law, which governs Ohio. Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft (6th Cir., May 11, 2026) is currently controlling; a circuit split exists with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, the Fifth Circuit is rehearing its case en banc, and Supreme Court review is possible. Content reviewed September 2026 against published circuit decisions, the district court docket in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, EOIR precedent decisions and published ICE bond procedures. Reviewed by Richard T. Herman, Esq. · Founder, Herman Legal Group. This page is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Attorney Richard Herman shares his wealth of knowledge through our free blog.
Head Office OH
408 West Saint Clair Avenue, Suite 230 Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone Number
+1-216-696-6170
Email Address
