Ohio enforcement · Deportation flights · September 26, 2026
167 ICE landings
That is how many ICE charter flights touched down at Akron-Canton Airport between late April and September 17, 2026. Here is how Ohio’s deportation pipeline runs, and why families have to act before a detained relative reaches the tarmac.
Is ICE running deportation flights out of Akron-Canton Airport? Yes. Since late April 2026, three charter carriers working for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Eastern Air Express, Global X and Air Wisconsin) have landed at Akron-Canton Airport (CAK) 167 times through September 17, according to reporting by the Ohio Capital Journal. Detainees are bused in from county jails across Ohio and flown most often to ICE’s staging center in Alexandria, Louisiana. For families, the key point is timing: once a detainee is on the bus to the airport, it is usually too late for a lawyer to stop that flight. The legal window is before transfer.
Attorney reviewedReviewed by Richard T. Herman, Esq. on September 26, 2026
ICE moved its Northeast Ohio deportation flights to Akron-Canton in late April, after Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport partly closed its longest runway for repairs. Akron-Canton has since become a Great Lakes hub for removal flights. Planes typically arrive in the evening, sit overnight on a private apron run by the fixed-base operator Avflight on West Airport Drive, and leave the next morning, most often between 8 and 11 a.m.
Reporter Doug Oplinger, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, documented the routine through repeated site visits and flight-tracking data from FlightAware. Prison buses and vans, including vehicles from the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, the Butler County Jail, Mahoning County and the private prison company CoreCivic, arrive roughly 90 minutes before departure. Detainees’ restraints are checked, they board, and the buses stay until the plane leaves.
The carriers fly Boeing 737s and Airbus A319/A320s that seat roughly 125 to 180 passengers, plus a smaller CRJ200 regional jet. Most outbound flights head to Alexandria, Louisiana, home of a major ICE detention and deportation staging center. Some aircraft have arrived directly from Tapachula, Mexico, an endpoint for many deportees. The busiest stretch so far appears to have been the week after Labor Day. On September 9 alone, two jets left for Alexandria within about three hours of each other.
Put together, the public reporting describes a five-stage path from an arrest in an Ohio community to a flight out of the state. Each stage has a different legal window, and the windows narrow quickly. The map below shows where these stages happen.
Moving a detainee out of Ohio is not just a change of address. It can change the court, the controlling law and a family’s practical ability to fight the case.
| Issue | While held in Ohio | After transfer to Louisiana |
|---|---|---|
| Federal appeals court | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi) |
| Habeas corpus petition | Can generally be filed in an Ohio federal district court while the person is confined there | Generally must be filed in Louisiana, where the person is then held |
| Immigration court | Often the Cleveland Immigration Court or a detained docket serving Ohio | A Louisiana detained docket, with hearings by video and short timelines |
| Family and evidence | Relatives can attend hearings, sign declarations and deliver documents | About 900 miles away by air; everything moves through phone, mail and counsel |
Two rules explain why speed matters. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Rumsfeld v. Padilla (2004), a core habeas petition generally belongs in the district where the person is confined, against the official holding them. And under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2), a petition for review of a removal order goes to the court of appeals for the circuit where the immigration judge completed the proceedings. A petition filed while someone is still held in Ohio can keep the case before an Ohio federal court even if ICE later moves the person. Once the transfer happens first, that option is usually gone.
Circuits do not always agree on detention and bond questions, and those questions have been heavily litigated since 2025. Which circuit’s precedent applies can shape whether a detainee gets a bond hearing at all. HLG founder Richard T. Herman is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where Ohio detention and removal cases are litigated. For how appeals work, see our guide to deportation defense and immigration court.
The Akron-Canton flights are one visible piece of a statewide surge. The numbers below come from different sources and time frames, so they should be read side by side, not added together.
ICE detention in Ohio, before and after
Many of the people on these flights are not being removed on criminal grounds. Former TPS holders, people with pending asylum cases and people arrested at routine check-ins can end up on the same bus. If a family member lost TPS, see our explainer on the Supreme Court’s TPS ruling in Mullin v. Doe and what individual options may remain.
Six facilities in five Ohio locations hold people for ICE. Detainees from several of them have been seen arriving by bus or van at Akron-Canton Airport.
Ohio’s ICE deportation route: jails to Akron-Canton to Louisiana
| Facility | Location | Notes from public reporting |
|---|---|---|
| Butler County Jail | Hamilton (Southwest Ohio) | Largest share of recent ICE bookings; used for Haitians arrested in the Springfield area; buses observed at Akron-Canton |
| Mahoning County Justice Center | Youngstown | Short-term holds; county vans observed at Akron-Canton |
| Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (CoreCivic) | Youngstown | Ohio’s only privately run ICE detention facility; does not publish a roster |
| Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio (CCNO) | Stryker (west of Toledo) | Transport vans observed loading an Akron-Canton flight on Sept. 9 |
| Seneca County Jail | Tiffin | Longer-term holds, per the Ohio Immigrant Alliance |
| Geauga County Safety Center | Chardon | Longer-term holds; does not publish its roster online |
Families near these facilities can find local help through our pages for Akron and Canton, Youngstown, Toledo, Dayton and Springfield and Cincinnati and Butler County. The ACLU of Ohio’s ICE in Ohio report tracks which counties hold jail-bed, transport and 287(g) agreements.
Act while the person is still in Ohio. These steps are general information, not a substitute for advice on a specific case.
About the $3,000 “self-deportation” offer. DHS is offering Haitians and others a free flight and a $3,000 payment to leave. Talk to a lawyer before accepting. Leaving the United States can abandon a pending asylum or other application and, depending on the person’s immigration history, can trigger multi-year bars to returning.
Invoices released by the Akron-Canton Airport Authority show that Eastern Airlines, Global X and Air Wisconsin owed a combined $46,513 for 148 billed landings, including $33,927 past due for May, June and July. That total equals roughly 4% of the airport’s $1.1 million in 2025 landing-fee revenue. Airport officials said the carriers had not contacted them about the late fees.
The dollar amount is small by federal standards. The transparency gap is the larger story. The airport, a public agency bound by Ohio’s public-records law, answered questions promptly. ICE did not respond for weeks. The charter airlines and the private ground operator declined to share operational details, and a county sheriff’s office referred most questions to ICE. When removal logistics run through private contractors, families and their lawyers often cannot learn when a relative will be moved until it has already happened. That is why the legal work has to start at booking, not at the airport fence.
For Ohio’s wider financial exposure, see Richard T. Herman’s analysis of Ohio’s projected $6.9 billion share of deportation costs and our look at ICE’s $1.07 billion warehouse purchases.
Possibly. Youngstown-Warren’s runway reopened in the last week of August, and airport officials there understood that ICE might return. As of the September 24 report, neither airport had been told. Youngstown-Warren sits about 15 minutes from CoreCivic’s Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, while Akron-Canton is on a major interstate between two large metro areas. Either way, the legal steps for families are the same.
Yes. ICE charter carriers Eastern Air Express, Global X and Air Wisconsin have used Akron-Canton Airport since late April 2026, after flights moved from Youngstown-Warren during runway repairs. The Ohio Capital Journal counted 167 landings through September 17, 2026.
Most outbound flights go to Alexandria, Louisiana, where ICE operates a major detention and deportation staging center. Some aircraft have arrived at Akron-Canton directly from Tapachula, Mexico.
Public reporting identifies the Butler County Jail, Mahoning County Justice Center, Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, Seneca County Jail, Geauga County Safety Center and the privately run Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown.
Rarely. By the time a detainee is bused to the airport, there is usually no time for a court to rule. The practical window is while the person is still in an Ohio jail, when a lawyer can seek bond, request a stay or file in federal court.
The case continues, but it may move to a Louisiana immigration court and fall under the Fifth Circuit instead of the Sixth. A habeas petition generally must be filed where the person is held, so filing while they are still in Ohio can matter.
Search the ICE Online Detainee Locator with the person’s A-number and country of birth, or name, country and date of birth. If nothing appears, call the likely county jail and contact an immigration attorney, because records can lag during transfers.
Not without legal advice. Leaving can abandon pending applications such as asylum and, depending on a person’s history, trigger bars to returning to the United States.
It is unclear. Youngstown-Warren’s runway reopened in late August 2026, but as of September 24 neither airport had been told whether ICE would move the flights back.
This article provides general information and commentary, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Detention law and ICE practices are changing quickly; confirm current rules with an attorney.
Commentary · Ohio workforce & immigration enforcement
$6.9 billion
Ohio’s projected share of federal mass-deportation spending, about $1,670 for the average Ohio filer who owes federal income tax. And that is before counting the workers, businesses, and tax revenue Ohio stands to lose.
Are Ohio taxpayers paying for ICE? Yes, through their share of federal taxes. The Economic Policy Institute’s deportation cost calculator divides a projected $268.9 billion federal mass-deportation cost among the states by each state’s share of federal income taxes. Ohio’s portion is nearly $6.9 billion through the rest of President Trump’s term, about $1,670 per Ohio filer who owes tax after credits. It is an allocation of federal spending, not a new charge on an Ohio tax return.
Most Americans are more worried about gas and grocery prices than about aggressive ICE enforcement in their immigrant neighbors’ communities. A friend told me recently that until people feel enforcement in their own lives, the outrage won’t come.
The financial side may be where many Ohioans finally do feel it: in their federal tax dollars, in longer waits for home care, and in local businesses that can’t find workers. The $6.9 billion is real money drawn from taxes Ohioans already pay. It also leaves out a second bill, the one Ohio pays when enforcement removes workers, customers, and business owners from its communities.
The administration says it is targeting the “worst of the worst.” The Ohio numbers show a much wider net.
What the administration says
Enforcement is focused on the “worst of the worst.”
What Ohio’s records show
Of 7,756 people detained, 47% had no criminal history and fewer than 5% had a violent conviction.
A review of federal records reported by cleveland.com covered January 2025 through March 2026. Some detainees had pending charges or nonviolent offenses, including traffic violations such as driving without a license. Others were held only for civil status violations, such as a visa overstay or the end of temporary protected status.
Detention often leads to removal. A Deportation Data Project analysis found that among detainees with no criminal conviction and no prior removal order, the share deported within 60 days of booking roughly doubled during the administration’s first year.
Ohio employers are already short of workers. A May 2026 OhioMeansJobs report counted 126,739 online job postings, including 4,596 for registered nurses. Immigrants make up 6.2% of Ohio’s overall workforce but a larger share of several key industries, according to the American Immigration Council:
| Ohio occupation or industry | Immigrant share of workers |
|---|---|
| Personal-care aides | 15.7% |
| Transportation and warehousing | 9.1% |
| Manufacturing | 7.6% |
| Agriculture | 6.9% |
| Construction | 6.2% |
| All Ohio workers | 6.2% |
Those figures include naturalized citizens, green card holders, and visa holders, not only people at risk of removal. The damage also reaches U.S.-born workers. A 2026 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper found that for every six likely undocumented men who lost work after increased ICE activity, one U.S.-born man without a college degree lost work too. When employers can’t staff a line or a job site, they cut output, turn down contracts, or build their next expansion somewhere else.
In 2023, immigrant households in Ohio paid $7.3 billion in federal, state, and local taxes and held $20 billion in spending power, according to the American Immigration Council. More than 38,200 immigrant entrepreneurs, 8.2% of all Ohio entrepreneurs, earned $1 billion in business income.
Immigrants also help hold up Ohio’s population. Net migration added 146,471 residents since 2020, more than the state’s total growth of 101,065, according to JobsOhio’s summary of Census estimates. Cleveland’s 2025 population is still 2.4% below its 2020 level, according to the Census Bureau.
JobsOhio offers employers up to $15,000 for each qualifying out-of-state STEM or technical hire. At the same time, Ohio’s share of federal enforcement spending goes toward removing people who already live and work here. Paying to recruit workers while funding the removal of others is not a coherent economic development plan. That conviction is why I helped found Global Cleveland: a region that has lost population cannot afford to treat newcomers as a threat.
People who pose genuine threats should remain enforcement priorities, and immigration is no substitute for better wages, safer workplaces, and serious training for Ohioans. But Gov. Mike DeWine has already acknowledged that Ohio needs immigrants. He and JobsOhio should say plainly that broad removal undercuts the state’s workforce goals. Ohio’s congressional delegation should push for legal employment channels that match workforce needs, dependable seasonal-worker programs, and a workable path to legal status for long-settled residents without serious criminal records.
Read the full commentary: “Ohio taxpayers face a $1,670 deportation bill, and a smaller workforce” by Richard T. Herman, Ohio Capital Journal, September 22, 2026.
No. The $1,670 figure is the Economic Policy Institute’s estimate of each Ohio filer’s share of projected federal mass-deportation spending, based on Ohio’s share of federal income taxes. It is not a separate charge on a tax return.
EPI projects Ohio’s share of federal mass-deportation costs at nearly $6.9 billion through the remainder of President Trump’s term. That figure does not include indirect costs such as lost workers, lost business income, and lower tax revenue.
A review of federal records found ICE detained 7,756 people in Ohio between January 2025 and March 2026. Forty-seven percent had no criminal history, and fewer than 5% had been convicted of a violent offense.
According to the American Immigration Council, immigrants are 15.7% of Ohio’s personal-care aides, 9.1% of transportation and warehousing workers, 7.6% of manufacturing workers, 6.9% of agricultural workers, and 6.2% of construction workers.
Richard T. Herman is a Cleveland immigration attorney with more than 30 years of practice, the founder of Herman Legal Group, co-author of Immigrant, Inc., and helped found Global Cleveland. He writes frequently on immigration law and Ohio’s economy.
This article provides general information and commentary, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
This Cleveland case also raises a broader question about representation and accountability in the institutions serving immigrant families. Read our analysis of whether Cleveland truly shares power with immigrants.
Updated June 11, 2026
A federal child migrant sponsorship fraud case, specifically the Cleveland child migrant sponsorship fraud, with major ties to Cleveland, Ohio has become one of the most important immigration enforcement stories of 2026.
On June 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that three Guatemalan nationals had been indicted for alleged crimes involving unaccompanied alien children, including smuggling, fraud, false statements, and identity-related offenses. According to the DOJ’s official announcement, prosecutors allege that the defendants participated in a scheme to fraudulently obtain custody of migrant children released through the Office of Refugee Resettlement sponsorship system.
The Cleveland connection is especially important. According to Cleveland.com’s reporting on the Ohio cases, Cleveland-area cases are now being cited by the Trump Administration as part of a broader crackdown on alleged fraud tied to unaccompanied migrant children.
The case also fits into a national enforcement push focused on so-called “super sponsors,” a term used to describe adults who have taken custody of multiple unrelated migrant children. The Associated Press reported that federal officials have identified more than 15,000 such cases for possible additional scrutiny.
For immigrant families, sponsors, attorneys, schools, social service agencies, and child advocates in Ohio, this case raises urgent questions about ORR sponsor vetting, child welfare, immigration fraud, human smuggling, and humanitarian protections for vulnerable children.
The DOJ has announced indictments against three Guatemalan nationals in a case involving alleged Cleveland child migrant sponsorship fraud, smuggling, false statements, and identity-related crimes connected to unaccompanied migrant children.
Cleveland, Ohio is a central part of the story because federal officials and media reports have tied local cases of Cleveland child migrant sponsorship fraud to the national crackdown.
The case focuses on alleged abuse of the ORR sponsorship system, which is used to place unaccompanied children with sponsors while immigration proceedings continue.
Federal officials are now reviewing thousands of “super sponsor” cases involving adults who received custody of multiple unrelated migrant children.
The case may lead to stricter sponsor vetting, more immigration fraud investigations, and increased enforcement against alleged child smuggling networks.
At the same time, most sponsors are family members or trusted adults acting in good faith. The challenge is protecting children without blocking legitimate family reunification.
Immigration enforcement stories involving unaccompanied children often focus on the southern border. This case is different because Northeast Ohio is now part of the national story.
According to Cleveland.com, Cleveland-area cases of Cleveland child migrant sponsorship fraud were cited in connection with the Trump Administration’s broader effort to pursue alleged fraud involving child migrants. That local connection makes this more than a national policy story. It is also an Ohio immigration, child welfare, and federal criminal enforcement story.
For Cleveland families, immigrant communities, schools, churches, healthcare providers, and social service agencies, the case highlights the growing overlap between:
unaccompanied alien children;
ORR sponsor screening;
child trafficking prevention;
immigration fraud investigations;
ICE enforcement;
removal proceedings;
humanitarian relief for vulnerable minors.
Herman Legal Group has previously examined the federal government’s increasing focus on migrant children in ICE Target: New Deportation Policy for Unaccompanied Migrant Kids, which discusses sponsor vetting, trafficking concerns, deportation risks, and government efforts to locate children who entered the United States without parents or legal guardians.
According to the DOJ’s June 11, 2026 press release, federal prosecutors allege that the defendants participated in a scheme involving unaccompanied alien children who had entered the United States and were later released through the federal sponsorship process.
The allegations include:
false sponsor applications;
false family relationships;
fraudulent documents;
stolen or false identities;
transportation and harboring of children;
financial benefit from the alleged scheme.
The National News Desk / ABC affiliate coverage described the case as part of a broader DOJ effort to expose what federal officials called a migrant child smuggling scheme involving fraudulent sponsorship applications. See ABC/Sinclair’s report on the DOJ announcement.
The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
An unaccompanied alien child, often called a UAC, generally refers to a child under age 18 who lacks lawful immigration status and does not have a parent or legal guardian available in the United States to provide care and custody.
The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement Unaccompanied Alien Children Bureau is responsible for the care and placement of many unaccompanied children after they are transferred from immigration custody. ORR attempts to identify appropriate sponsors, often parents, relatives, or trusted adult caregivers.
The ORR process is intended to balance two competing goals:
placing children with safe sponsors instead of keeping them in federal custody; and
protecting children from trafficking, abuse, neglect, exploitation, and unsafe placements.
The government’s own ORR materials explain that sponsors must generally pass background checks and agree to ensure that the child appears for future immigration proceedings. See ORR’s official page on unaccompanied children released to sponsors by state.
This Cleveland-linked prosecution focuses on the government’s claim that some individuals exploited that sponsor-release system.
The DOJ case did not appear in a vacuum. It comes after years of debate over whether federal agencies have done enough to track and protect unaccompanied children after release from custody.
Herman Legal Group previously addressed this controversy in Missing Migrant Children: 5 Eye-Opening Facts You Need to Know, which explains how government data about “missing,” “unaccounted for,” or unreachable migrant children can be confusing, politically charged, and often misunderstood.
That issue is now central to the DOJ’s enforcement message. Federal officials argue that weak sponsor vetting can create opportunities for:
child labor exploitation;
human trafficking;
sexual abuse;
identity fraud;
immigration fraud;
forced debt repayment;
smuggling networks;
misuse of government child-placement systems.
At the same time, immigrant advocates warn that overly aggressive vetting can discourage parents and relatives from coming forward to sponsor children, especially if sponsors fear ICE enforcement, detention, or removal.
Reuters previously reported that the Trump Administration rolled back limits on sharing sponsor immigration-status information with law enforcement, raising concerns that undocumented relatives may become afraid to claim children from ORR custody. See Reuters’ report on ORR sponsor immigration-status sharing.
The phrase “super sponsor” has become central to the Administration’s messaging.
According to Associated Press reporting, federal officials have identified more than 15,000 cases involving adults who received custody of three or more unrelated migrant children.
It is important to be precise: sponsoring multiple children is not automatically illegal.
Some sponsors may be relatives, family friends, foster-type caregivers, community members, or trusted adults helping children who have no parent available in the United States. But the government is now signaling that certain multiple-child sponsorship patterns may trigger closer investigation.
Federal agencies may look for red flags such as:
the same address used repeatedly;
sponsors claiming unrelated children as relatives;
children being coached to lie;
false documents;
sponsors using stolen identities;
children working soon after release;
money transfers or payments connected to sponsorship;
sponsors unable to explain the child’s relationship to the household.
These concerns are why the Cleveland case is being framed as a test case for broader enforcement.
This case may significantly affect how ORR, HHS, DHS, ICE, and DOJ evaluate future sponsors.
Families seeking to sponsor unaccompanied children should expect increased scrutiny of:
identity documents;
proof of relationship;
household members;
address history;
financial support;
immigration history;
criminal history;
prior sponsorships;
school enrollment plans;
medical and mental health support;
transportation and living arrangements.
Sponsors should also understand that false statements to federal agencies can have serious consequences. In some cases, alleged sponsor fraud may trigger criminal charges, immigration removal proceedings, denial of immigration benefits, or future inadmissibility problems.
Families facing these issues should consult experienced immigration counsel before submitting documents or answering government questions. Herman Legal Group’s broader removal defense resources may be helpful for families who fear that a sponsor investigation could lead to ICE action or immigration court. See HLG’s guide on Protecting Immigrants from Expedited Removal and Immigration Court Arrests.
The children in these cases are not just immigration case numbers. Many have fled poverty, violence, abandonment, gang threats, family breakdown, abuse, or neglect.
Some unaccompanied children may qualify for humanitarian immigration relief, including:
asylum;
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status;
T visas for trafficking victims;
U visas for victims of serious crimes;
family-based immigration;
prosecutorial discretion;
removal defense.
Herman Legal Group has discussed child-focused immigration remedies in multiple resources, including the firm’s explanation of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status in its immigration glossary, which describes SIJS as a humanitarian immigration status for certain children who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by one or both parents.
This issue is especially important because a child who is placed with an unsafe sponsor may later need urgent legal intervention, child welfare protection, state juvenile court orders, or humanitarian immigration relief.
One of the most important questions raised by this case is whether children have meaningful access to lawyers.
Unaccompanied children often face immigration court alone unless they can obtain nonprofit, pro bono, or private legal representation. Without counsel, children may not understand asylum, SIJS, trafficking relief, family petitions, court deadlines, change-of-address requirements, or removal orders.
Herman Legal Group previously analyzed this issue in Trump Restores Legal Aid for Unaccompanied Immigrant Minor Children: A Critical Reversal by the Administration, which explains why legal representation can be critical for children navigating the immigration system.
If federal agencies increase enforcement against sponsors, children may need legal help even more urgently—not only for immigration court, but also for protection from abuse, trafficking, or exploitation.
The Cleveland-linked DOJ prosecution comes during a much broader immigration enforcement campaign.
In 2026, the Trump Administration has expanded attention on:
interior immigration enforcement;
ICE arrests;
expedited removal;
detention;
sponsor vetting;
fraud investigations;
immigration court enforcement;
humanitarian benefit scrutiny.
Herman Legal Group has analyzed these trends in Trump Will Expand Immigration Enforcement in 2026 and Can ICE Arrest You If You Have a Pending Immigration Application?.
For sponsors of unaccompanied children, this means that an ORR sponsorship issue may no longer remain limited to child placement. It may become connected to ICE, DOJ, HHS, DHS, immigration court, or federal criminal investigations.
The Cleveland child migrant sponsorship fraud case is likely to become one of the most cited immigration enforcement stories of 2026.
Federal officials will likely use the case to argue for:
stricter ORR sponsor vetting;
more interagency data sharing;
increased home visits;
closer review of sponsor addresses;
more investigations of repeat sponsors;
criminal prosecution of fraudulent sponsorship schemes;
expanded screening for trafficking and labor exploitation.
But there is another side to the policy debate.
If sponsor vetting becomes too punitive, undocumented parents, relatives, and caregivers may become afraid to come forward. That could leave children in federal custody longer, separate families, delay legal relief, and increase the trauma experienced by vulnerable minors.
The right approach should protect children from traffickers and fraudsters while preserving safe, lawful family reunification.
That balance matters deeply in Cleveland, throughout Ohio, and across the country.
Federal prosecutors announced indictments against three Guatemalan nationals accused of participating in a scheme involving unaccompanied migrant children, fraudulent sponsor applications, false statements, and identity-related offenses. Cleveland-area cases have been cited in media coverage and federal enforcement discussions.
Cleveland is connected because cases from the Cleveland area were reportedly cited as part of the Administration’s broader crackdown on alleged fraud involving child migrants. Local reporting by Cleveland.com placed Northeast Ohio at the center of the national story.
An unaccompanied alien child is generally a child under 18 who lacks lawful immigration status and does not have a parent or legal guardian available in the United States to provide care and custody.
ORR stands for the Office of Refugee Resettlement. ORR is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is responsible for the care and placement of many unaccompanied children. More information is available from the official ORR Unaccompanied Alien Children Bureau.
A sponsor is usually a parent, relative, family friend, or other approved adult who agrees to care for the child after release from ORR custody and help ensure the child appears for immigration proceedings.
No. Sponsoring a child is not illegal when done truthfully and lawfully. The legal risk arises when a person allegedly lies, uses false documents, claims a false family relationship, exploits the child, or participates in smuggling or trafficking.
A “super sponsor” is a term being used to describe an adult who has sponsored multiple unrelated migrant children. Sponsoring multiple children is not automatically illegal, but federal officials are now reviewing some cases for possible fraud or exploitation.
Yes. If the government believes a sponsor used false statements, fraudulent documents, stolen identities, or participated in smuggling or trafficking, the case may become a federal criminal investigation.
Yes. Immigration fraud, false statements, smuggling allegations, or certain criminal charges may create deportation risks, inadmissibility issues, or future immigration benefit problems.
Sponsors should be truthful, preserve documents, avoid coaching children to give false information, respond carefully to government requests, and consult immigration counsel before submitting uncertain or potentially damaging information.
Depending on the facts, children may qualify for asylum, SIJS, T visas, U visas, family petitions, or other humanitarian relief.
ICE Target: New Deportation Policy for Unaccompanied Migrant Kids
Missing Migrant Children: 5 Eye-Opening Facts You Need to Know
Trump Restores Legal Aid for Unaccompanied Immigrant Minor Children
Protecting Immigrants from Expedited Removal and Immigration Court Arrests
Can ICE Arrest You If You Have a Pending Immigration Application?
DOJ: Three Guatemalan Nationals Indicted for Crimes Related to Unaccompanied Alien Children
DOJ, DHS, HHS Press Conference on Safeguarding Unaccompanied Children
Cleveland.com: Cleveland Cases Cited in Crackdown on Fraud Tied to Child Migrants
Associated Press: Trump Administration Identifies “Super Sponsors” of Migrant Children
Cases involving unaccompanied children require urgent and careful legal guidance.
Herman Legal Group assists families, sponsors, children, and caregivers with:
ORR sponsorship issues;
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status;
asylum for children;
trafficking-related immigration relief;
U visas and T visas;
family reunification;
immigration court defense;
ICE enforcement concerns;
allegations of immigration fraud or false statements.
For more than 30 years, Richard T. Herman and the Herman Legal Group team have represented immigrants, families, children, sponsors, and vulnerable individuals throughout Cleveland, Ohio and across the United States.
Call +1-216-696-6170 or schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group today.
Herman Legal Group (HLG) has prepared this in-depth, public-facing resource identifying Ohio-based companies that currently hold contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), based on FY 2026 federal contracting data.
All contract data below is sourced directly from USAspending.gov.
HLG applied the following active filters on USAspending.gov:
Time Period: FY 2026
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Recipient Location: Ohio
Award Type: Contracts
Results:
Prime Contracts: 3
For the national picture behind these Ohio numbers, including the detention operators, flight brokers, and software vendors that hold active contracts with ICE, see our national directory of ICE contractors and contract sources.
Website: https://www.lexisnexis.com
ICE Contract Price: $2,475,000
Service Provided:
Electronic legal research and law library services for ICE detention facilities, supporting legal analysis, enforcement litigation, and detention operations.
Website: https://www.gravitasinv.com
ICE Contract Price: $427,500
Service Provided:
Skip-tracing and investigative services used to locate individuals for ICE enforcement and removal operations.
Website: https://www.stericycle.com
ICE Contract Price: $4,160
Service Provided:
Secure document shredding and destruction services for ICE records and sensitive enforcement materials.
Prime Award ID: 70CDCR23P00000003
Total Obligations: $2,475,000
Outlays to Date: $1,770,450
Period of Performance: December 31, 2022 – December 30, 2027
Award Type: Purchase Order
Award Description: Electronic law library for ICE detention facilities
NAICS: 519290 – Web Search Portals & Information Services
PSC: B522 – Legal Studies / Analysis
Government Source:
USAspending.gov → Search “RELX Inc.” under ICE contracts
https://www.usaspending.gov
RELX, through its LexisNexis platforms, provides electronic legal research databases used by:
ICE attorneys
ICE enforcement personnel
Detention facility operations
These tools directly support detention operations, immigration litigation, and enforcement-related legal analysis.
Company: RELX Inc.
Ohio Address: 9443 Springboro Pike, Miamisburg, OH 45342
Website: https://www.lexisnexis.com
General Phone: 800-543-6862
Contact Page: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/contact-us
Prime Award ID: 70CDCR26FR0000016
Total Obligations: $427,500
Award Type: Delivery Order
Period of Performance: December 16, 2025 – March 15, 2026
Award Description: Skip-tracing services for enforcement and removal operations
NAICS: 561611 – Investigation & Personal Background Check Services
PSC: R799 – Management Support Services
Government Source:
USAspending.gov → Search “Gravitas Professional Services”
https://www.usaspending.gov
Gravitas provides skip-tracing and investigative services, which typically include:
Locating individuals using databases and investigative tools
Address and identity verification
Background and enforcement support research
These services are commonly used in ICE arrest operations, detention planning, and removal enforcement.
Company: Gravitas Professional Services, LLC
Ohio Address: 1985 King Ave, Suite 321, Kings Mills, OH 45034
Website: https://www.gravitasinv.com
Phone: 513-445-9779
Contact Page: https://www.gravitasinv.com/contact-info
Prime Award ID: 70CMSD19FR0000028
Total Obligations: $4,160
Award Type: Delivery Order
Award Description: Shredding and secure document destruction services
Government Source:
USAspending.gov → Search “Stericycle Inc.”
https://www.usaspending.gov
Stericycle provides secure shredding and document destruction services that support ICE by:
Disposing of sensitive enforcement records
Destroying detainee-related documentation
Maintaining compliance with federal privacy and record-retention requirements
Although lower in dollar value, these services support core detention and enforcement infrastructure.
Stericycle has operational locations in Ohio and provides statewide services.
Company: Stericycle, Inc.
Ohio Operations Address:
2570 Westbelt Drive, Columbus, OH 43228
Corporate Website: https://www.stericycle.com
Customer Service Phone: 866-783-7422
Ohio Services Page:
https://www.stericycle.com/en-us/service-locations/ohio
General Contact Page:
https://www.stericycle.com/en-us/contact-us
Anyone can independently verify and expand this research using USAspending.gov.
Select Advanced Search
Apply filters:
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Recipient Location: Ohio (or any state)
Award Type: Contracts
Time Period: FY 2026
Review:
Award descriptions
Obligation amounts
NAICS and PSC codes
Cross-reference companies using:
Corporate websites
SEC filings (if public)
SAM.gov and GSA eLibrary
This method allows the public to identify which companies support ICE and how.
ICE does not operate alone. Its enforcement, detention, surveillance, and litigation efforts depend on private companies providing:
Legal research platforms
Investigative and skip-tracing services
Records management and destruction
Logistics and operational support
Understanding which Ohio companies profit from ICE contracts enables informed public discussion, journalism, advocacy, and accountability.
Boycotts are a lawful form of civic participation grounded in free speech and consumer choice. When conducted ethically, they can raise awareness, influence corporate decision-making, and encourage transparency—without targeting individuals or disrupting lawful activity.
Peaceful and lawful only
Respectful communication with companies and the public
Fact-based advocacy (cite verifiable sources such as USAspending.gov)
No harassment, no threats, no doxxing, no property damage, no violence
Effective boycotts are precise. Decide upfront:
Which company (or limited set of companies) you are boycotting
What conduct you oppose (e.g., specific ICE contracts or services)
What change you are requesting (review, transparency, non-renewal, exit)
Avoid vague demands. Clarity improves credibility and results.
Before asking others to act:
Confirm the contract exists (award ID, dates, description)
Identify what services are provided and why they matter
Keep links to government sources readily available
Accuracy is essential. Misstatements undermine lawful advocacy.
A boycott begins personally:
Do not purchase the company’s products or services
Encourage alternatives without disparaging employees or customers
Document your decision respectfully (“I am choosing not to buy because…”)
Send polite, non-threatening letters or emails (see the sample letter above)
Request public disclosure or a policy review
Invite a response or statement—do not demand one
Professional communication is more likely to receive engagement.
Rather than duplicating efforts:
Search for ongoing campaigns focused on ICE vendors or detention accountability
Align messaging and timing with existing initiatives
Follow organizers’ codes of conduct and messaging guidelines
Coordination reduces confusion and increases impact.
Social platforms can amplify lawful advocacy when used carefully.
Best Practices
Share verified links and neutral summaries of the facts
Use calm, values-based language
Encourage peaceful boycotts and consumer awareness
Avoid tagging individual employees or private persons
What to Avoid
Insults, threats, or repeated unwanted messages
Sharing personal information
Coordinated harassment or pile-ons
Suggested Content Types
Short explainers (“What this contract does and why it matters”)
Graphics citing public data sources
Calls for ethical review and transparency
Statements of personal consumer choice
If appropriate:
Write letters to the editor or op-eds citing public records
Contact journalists with concise, sourced briefs
Share concerns with shareholders or institutional investors through lawful channels
Focus on policy and corporate governance—not individuals.
If you organize a page, group, or event:
Publish a code of conduct (no harassment, no threats, no illegal activity)
Remove content that violates the rules
De-escalate conflict and redirect to facts
Strong moderation protects participants and the campaign.
Track lawful indicators of impact:
Company responses or statements
Media coverage quality
Growth of informed participation (not volume of outrage)
Refine messaging to stay accurate and respectful.
Peaceful boycotts and expressions of opinion are lawful. Harassment, threats, intimidation, property damage, and violence are not. Staying within the law protects participants and strengthens the legitimacy of the cause.
The following are real-world, documented examples of online initiatives that oppose corporate support for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These campaigns illustrate lawful, peaceful, and ethical boycott strategies centered on consumer choice, transparency, and public accountability.
These examples are provided for educational and informational purposes only and are not endorsements. Any participation should remain lawful, respectful, and non-harassing.
Not With My Dollars is a national consumer boycott campaign that targets corporations alleged to enable or profit from ICE through contracts, technology, or operational support.
Campaign Overview:
The campaign urges consumers to withhold spending—particularly during high-visibility shopping periods—until companies reevaluate or exit ICE-related business.
Public Reporting and Coverage:
Truthout – “Boycott Campaign Targets Companies Tied to ICE Ahead of Black Friday”
Typical Actions Encouraged:
Stop purchasing products or services
Cancel subscriptions
Share verified information publicly
Encourage others to make informed consumer choices
This initiative demonstrates how economic pressure and public education can be coordinated online without harassment or coercion.
#NoTechForICE is an online advocacy movement—particularly active within technology, academic, and research communities—opposing contracts between technology companies and immigration enforcement agencies.
Official Campaign Website:
NoTechForICE
Primary Focus:
Surveillance technology
Data analytics and databases
Cloud infrastructure
Digital tools used in enforcement or detention operations
Forms of Participation:
Signing public petitions
Sharing educational toolkits
Participating in workplace or campus discussions
Amplifying fact-based content on social media
This campaign shows how issue-specific, values-based advocacy can influence corporate ethics discussions.
BoycottICE (sometimes branded as ICEBREAKERS) functions as an online hub for boycott education and coordination.
Website:
BoycottICE.com
Purpose:
Compile publicly available information
Provide guidance on ethical boycotts
Offer tools for lawful civic engagement
Participation Methods:
Reading and sharing educational materials
Signing up for updates
Coordinating peaceful actions
This model highlights how centralized information hubs can support decentralized, lawful advocacy.
In addition to national initiatives, grassroots and community-led efforts often emerge across social platforms. These efforts vary in scope and organization but typically focus on sharing information and encouraging consumer awareness.
Examples include:
Facebook groups compiling boycott lists and discussing ethical consumer choices
Example Facebook discussion group
Instagram posts and reels explaining corporate connections to ICE in accessible formats
Example Instagram post
Reddit threads and community discussions reviewing ICE contracts and boycott strategies
Example Reddit discussion
Immigration advocacy blogs compiling boycott resources and explaining how to participate lawfully
Herman Legal Group – Boycott ICE Vendors Overview
These initiatives demonstrate how local, decentralized efforts can complement larger national campaigns.
Most online boycott efforts focus on companies that:
Hold federal contracts with ICE or DHS
Provide technology, data, or surveillance tools
Enable detention logistics or enforcement operations
Have consumer-facing brands sensitive to reputational impact
National reporting has documented corporate scrutiny and boycott discussions involving companies across technology, retail, hospitality, transportation, and data services sectors.
Despite differences in structure, effective and lawful boycott initiatives generally share the following traits:
Emphasis on consumer choice
Use of public records and verified data
Clear, non-coercive calls to action
No harassment or intimidation
No personal targeting of employees
Focus on corporate policy and accountability
Explainers and fact sheets
Government data citations
Transparent objectives
Respect for free-speech boundaries
Avoidance of misinformation
Compliance with platform rules and the law
Individuals interested in understanding or participating in ethical boycott efforts may explore:
Opposition to corporate support for immigration enforcement is a lawful exercise of free speech and consumer choice. Individuals and organizations have the right to:
Express disagreement with a company’s business practices
Choose not to purchase a company’s products or services
Encourage others to do the same through peaceful, truthful advocacy
Herman Legal Group strongly emphasizes the following principles:
Being polite, factual, and respectful
Communicating concerns directly to companies
Using accurate, verifiable information
Encouraging peaceful boycotts and consumer awareness
Respecting employees, contractors, and community members
Harassment, threats, or intimidation
Repeated unwanted communications
Hate speech or personal attacks
Property damage or vandalism
Violence or encouragement of violence
Illegal interference with business operations
Advocacy loses credibility—and legal protection—when it crosses into harassment or coercion. Peaceful boycotts and respectful communication are protected; harassment is not.
The following is a lawful, non-threatening, non-harassing sample letter that individuals may send to companies identified in this article. It is designed to communicate concern, request reconsideration, and encourage ethical review—not to intimidate or shame.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing as a member of the public to respectfully express my concern regarding your company’s current or past contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I recognize that your organization operates within the law and fulfills contractual obligations with government agencies. At the same time, many members of the public—including myself—are deeply concerned about the human impact of immigration detention and enforcement practices carried out by ICE.
As a consumer, I am exercising my right to voice my opinion and to make informed choices about the companies I support. I respectfully urge your leadership team to review your involvement with ICE and to consider whether continued participation aligns with your company’s stated values, corporate responsibility commitments, and community impact goals.
This message is sent in the spirit of peaceful civic engagement and ethical dialogue. I appreciate your time and consideration and hope your company will engage transparently with the public on this issue.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[City, State]
Boycotts are a long-recognized, lawful form of civic participation. Ethical boycott advocacy should focus on:
Withholding personal spending
Sharing verified information
Engaging media and shareholders lawfully
Calling for policy review—not punishment
Effective advocacy is calm, persistent, and fact-based—not aggressive or personal.
Companies are more likely to respond to:
Professional communication
Reputational and consumer-impact analysis
Shareholder and stakeholder concerns
Clear, values-based arguments
Harassment and threats often backfire, undermine public support, and can expose individuals to legal risk. Respectful advocacy strengthens credibility and impact.
Herman Legal Group supports:
Peaceful protest
Lawful boycotts
Informed public discourse
Transparency and accountability
HLG does not support harassment, intimidation, or illegal activity in any form.
Based on FY 2026 federal contracting data from USAspending.gov, Ohio-based companies with ICE contracts include firms providing legal research services, investigative/skip-tracing services, and document destruction services. These contracts support detention, enforcement, and administrative operations.
You can verify ICE contracts by using the Advanced Search tool on USAspending.gov and applying filters for:
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Award Type: Contracts
Recipient Location: Ohio
Fiscal Year: 2026 (or another year)
Each award lists the company name, contract value, and service description.
Ohio companies have provided services such as:
Electronic legal research for ICE detention facilities
Skip-tracing and investigative support for enforcement operations
Secure shredding and document destruction of ICE records
These services support ICE’s legal, enforcement, and administrative functions.
Yes. Peaceful boycotts and consumer advocacy are lawful forms of free expression and consumer choice, as long as they do not involve harassment, threats, intimidation, or illegal activity.
Yes. Members of the public may lawfully and respectfully contact companies to express concerns about ICE contracts, request transparency, or urge policy review. Communication should remain polite, factual, and non-harassing.
State-level analysis increases transparency and accountability by showing how local businesses participate in federal immigration enforcement. Ohio-focused data is especially useful for journalists, advocates, researchers, and consumers within the state.
No. Herman Legal Group supports lawful, peaceful advocacy only, including ethical boycotts and informed public discourse. Harassment, threats, violence, or illegal activity are never appropriate or effective.
This article’s Resource Directory links to:
Federal transparency tools
Independent research organizations
Herman Legal Group articles on ICE vendors, enforcement, and lawful boycotts
These resources provide verified information and legal context.
Herman Legal Group is a nationally recognized immigration law firm committed to data-driven, verifiable immigration analysis for the public, media, and policymakers.
USAspending.gov – Advanced Search
Official U.S. government database for federal contracts, grants, and awards. Use to identify ICE vendors by state, agency, and fiscal year.
USAspending.gov – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE spending overview under the Department of Homeland Security.
System for Award Management (SAM.gov)
Federal contractor registration database with corporate profiles and contract eligibility information.
GSA eLibrary
Search federal contractors and schedule holders providing services to DHS and ICE.
Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS)
Legacy federal procurement database used for contract verification and cross-referencing.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Official Website
ICE mission statements, enforcement priorities, and public-facing materials.
Department of Homeland Security – Budget & Performance
DHS budget documents, including ICE funding allocations.
Office of Inspector General – DHS
Audits, investigations, and oversight reports related to ICE and DHS operations.
BoycottICE
Public-facing boycott education and coordination hub focused on ICE accountability.
No Tech for ICE
Advocacy campaign opposing technology and surveillance contracts with ICE.
Truthout – ICE Boycott Coverage
Investigative reporting on consumer boycott campaigns targeting ICE-linked corporations.
The Nation – Corporate Partners of ICE
Long-form journalism examining corporate involvement in immigration enforcement.
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC Immigration)
Independent data on ICE enforcement, detention, and removals.
American Immigration Council – Enforcement & Detention Research
Policy analysis and data-driven research on immigration enforcement.
ACLU – Immigration Detention & Enforcement
Legal analysis and civil liberties reporting on detention practices.
How to Weaken ICE: Unified Strategy to Join, Support, or Build Boycott Campaigns — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/weaken-ice-join-the-boycott-ice-vendors-campaigns/
Black Friday ICE Boycott 2025: Targeted Companies — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/black-friday-ice-boycott-guide-2025/
Which Companies Are Facing Boycott For Role in Trump’s Immigration Enforcement? — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/which-companies-are-facing-boycott-for-role-in-trumps-immigration-enforcement/
Hilton, ICE, and Minneapolis-Area Hotels Case Study — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/hilton-ice-and-minneapolis-area-hotels-what-we-know-what-it-means-and-how-boycott-ice-campaigns-are-reshaping-corporate-behavior/
How ICE Built a Surveillance Regime: ICE Surveillance State 2025 — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/how-ice-built-a-surveillance-regime-ice-surveillance-state-2025/
ICE Arrests and Enforcement: Know Your Rights
Legal guidance for individuals encountering ICE enforcement.
ICE Arrests at USCIS Interviews
Analysis of enforcement risks and legal protections.
Immigration Detention and Removal Defense
Overview of legal defenses available to individuals facing ICE detention or removal.
Book a Consultation – Herman Legal Group
Speak directly with an immigration attorney about ICE enforcement or detention concerns.
