Having January to focus on the most vital immigration issue in the United States, mandatory detention is a significant concern in the autumn world of immigration law. This paper analyzes how ICE has treated foreign nationals within its detention facilities and will show that the determination of whether to grant bond or not decides the fate of the individuals that ICE detains. This particular article will discuss a common practice known as mandatory detention to explain the situations where ICE gives noncitizens no choice but to remain detained during deportation procedures.
Understanding the Role of Bond
After understanding the concept of bond in the context of immigration cases, it is necessary to understand the existence of mandatory detention. A friend, relative, or bond company posts a bond, which is an amount of money given to the U.S. government, to guarantee that the detained person will report to immigration court and abide by the immigration laws while in the United States. The bond also guarantees that the detained person will cooperate with the Immigration Judge during the removal proceedings.
The main purpose of a bond is that the individual will be present for all court hearings about immigration issues. It where not done causing the bond to be paid to the government. However, there are some situations where a prisoner cannot apply for bond consideration; and this piece will outline the generalers who fall under this category.
Grounds for Mandatory Immigration Detention
This means that the decision to detain a non-citizen is based on the number of criminal-related activities they are associated with. As mentioned earlier, there are typified activities related to alien inadmissibility or deportation charges in the United States.
The document containing the legal allegations against the individual, known as a Notice to Appear (NTA), determines if the government is seeking to find the individual inadmissible or deportable, among other aspects. It is important as it defines the legal basis of mandatory detention depending on the case.
The grounds for mandatory detention in cases of inadmissibility encompass:
Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT):
This is salient where the maximum presumptive term that an offender can deserve is a year or less, and the actual term served is below six months. The authorities will not detain an individual if the individual was over the age of 18 when they committed the crime, the offender is less than 18 years old, and the individual committed the crime more than five years ago.
Multiple Convictions with a Combined Sentence of Five Years or More:
For crimes that amount to a total of five years or more under the mandated minimum sentencing provisions.
Controlled Substance Offenses:
The immigration authorities prohibit all kinds of drug offenses, including cases where they merely suspect a person of being involved in the drug business.
The authorities must detain foreign suspects if they commit major criminal offenses that fall under the categories of prostitution-related offenses, terrorist activity, significant human trafficking, and money laundering.
It is important to highlight that actual conviction is not all that is necessary for mandatory detention. The authorities can activate this detention once they arrest one for performing certain crimes or receive enough evidence of one’s involvement in criminal acts.
For those facing deportation based on criminal convictions, the grounds for mandatory detention include:
Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude with a Sentence Exceeding One Year: Penalties due to conviction entailing incarceration for over one year.
Multiple Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude: Of Two or More Crimes of Moral Turpitude Convicts.
Aggravated Felony: According to the U. S immigration law, aggravated felonies’ consequences in deportation are obvious.
Firearms Offense, Controlled Substance Conviction (excluding small-scale marijuana possession), Drug Abuse or Addiction, Espionage, Sabotage, or Treason: Convictions within these categories should always lead to mandatory detention.
The Timing of ICE Detention
Even though legal rules exist that require immigration authorities to detain noncitizens in the United States without release after they serve a criminal sentence, the authorities may not preserve the general application of those rules. All too often, ICE practices result in prolonged detentions of individuals even after their release from criminal detention and therefore give rise to questions about the lawfulness of such conduct.
However, the periods that ICE detains unauthorized persons can differ from one jurisdiction to another because different courts interpret the law differently. If the authorities released one from criminal custody and ICE detains him or her several days later, it is wise for that person to seek legal advice to find out whether or not ICE’s detention was legal.
However, one important limitation conserves ICE’s power to detain without bond. ICE can only place someone in detention without bond if they released the person from criminal custody after October 8, 1998. In jurisdictions where authorities do not allow ICE to wait long before arresting an individual, afterward, ICE can only use the prior custody as justification for detention without a bond.
Exceptions to Mandatory Detention
Although it is a mandatory detention policy, there are several exceptions for aliens with a criminal record in place. If a crime does not fall under the listed grounds, ICE may not detain some people during the removal proceedings. For example, ICE may not necessarily detain those who committed certain non-violent non-misdemeanors or those who had no DUI arrests.
Additionally, there is a restricted proviso that allows the officials to share the information under extreme circumstances where the non-citizens are cooperating with the law enforcement agencies. The authorities can release such persons from detention where the person is an essential witness of a certain crime, assisting investigations of large-scale criminal undertakings, or if the person is, or was, a family member of a relevant witness. Nevertheless, the authorities do not commonly use this exception and do not observe its use very often.
But, to be able to apply for such an exception, an individual has to establish that his or her release will not be dangerous for the community or property and that he or she will be present for all immigration-related hearings.
Challenging ICE Detention
If you have an issue with ICE’s decision to detain you, whether because they released you before October 8, 1998, or because you do not think you fall under one or more of the mandatory detention grounds, then you may or will be able to petition for an administrative hearing, known as a Joseph hearing, before a judge of the immigration court.
At this stage, the judge determines whether the immigration laws require your detention. If the judge rules in your favor, they will automatically consider you for bond eligibility, providing an opportunity for release.
When determining your bond eligibility and amount, the judge considers factors such as whether you will fail to attend immigration hearings or whether you pose a danger to the community if released. As mentioned before, judges make rulings regarding bond amounts at their discretion because the rulings involve an objective judgment, and a judge can deny a bond if they choose. Thus, it is highly important to ensure that whoever is helping you obtain a bond offers good reasons why the authorities should release you from prison, such as your family ties, employment history, and other related matters.
Seeking Legal Guidance
The complexity of the immigration process is evident, particularly when dealing with cases that require mandatory detention, as you can observe. It would be best to hire a competent immigration attorney to help you out. First of all, a lawyer can guide you through all the complicated legislation, represent your case in terms of your release from detention, and struggle with your avoidance of deportation.
Therefore, the role of mandatory detention can affect noncitizens seeking options within the U. S. immigration system fundamentally. The issuance of bonds, the reason to justify mandatory detention as well as the exceptions are equally important and influential in shaping the future of persons in removal proceedings. As we have highlighted in this paper, it is always wise for one to seek the services of a lawyer in cases like these so that the lawyer can help one obtain a bond and continue one’s stay in the United States.
