Current circumstances are supremely challenging for immigrants who are in this country without documentation. The government’s detention and removal efforts have impacted many. One crucial fact to keep in mind is that, even if you are an undocumented immigrant, you still have rights under the Constitution, including Due Process Rights. One of the most effective ways to protect your rights is to ensure that, at every step in your process, you have a skilled Maryland immigration lawyer on your side.
That is true because it often takes in-depth knowledge and experience in navigating the system to achieve a just result, as a recent detention case from neighboring Virginia illustrates.
Carlos was an immigrant from Peru who entered the U.S. on December 6, 2023. In June 2024, after settling in Northern Virginia, he filed an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (Form I-589). At a July 2025 preliminary hearing, the immigration judge set Carlos’s asylum application trial for April 2026.
However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Carlos as soon as he left the hearing, transporting him to a detention facility roughly three hours south of his home.
Carlos’s attorney wisely filed a motion with the immigration judge, asking the judge to grant Carlos bond. The IJ agreed with Carlos’s attorney’s arguments and granted bond in the amount of $1,500, which is the statutory minimum. However, because the government filed a notice of intent to appeal, Carlos remained locked up at the detention center.
As a result, his legal counsel went to the federal district court for help. Carlos’s attorney filed something called a “petition for writ of habeas corpus,” which is a formal request asking a judge to determine if the subject person’s incarceration (or other detention) is lawful.
Carlos achieved a successful result in the district court. The specifics of the district judge’s ruling highlight some key points.
For one thing, Carlos’s success was a reminder that immigrants in detention may avail themselves of the federal court system — and not just the immigration courts — for relief when they need to challenge the legality of their detention. The court highlighted the history of the use of habeas corpus relief and that, in “the immigration context, habeas is ‘regularly invoked on behalf of noncitizens.’”
Additionally, the statute that the government relied upon — 8 USC Section 1252(b)(9) — to argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction was something that deals specifically and narrowly with judicial review of an order of removal. Because the relief Carlos sought was technically not a review of an order of removal, the statute the government tried to use did not deny the district court jurisdiction to hear Carlos’s petition.
‘The Precise Kind of Arbitrary Detention that the Due Process Clause Guards Against’
Two, the court concluded that Carlos’s petition had merit. The court emphasized the due process rights that all individuals, including citizens and noncitizens, are entitled to. By continuing to detain Carlos without bond despite lacking any “special justification” for doing so, even after an IJ had already made specific findings that Carlos did not “pose a threat to the safety of others or a risk of flight,” the government engaged in exactly the sort of “arbitrary detention that the Due Process Clause guards against.”
Carlos’s case is a reminder of many things, not the least of which is the importance of arming yourself with skillful counsel. When it comes to protecting your rights, the Maryland deportation defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC are here to help. Our experienced team can help you navigate the system, regardless of the specifics of your case. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or use our online form to schedule your consultation.