Green Card Holder Bond Granted After 15 Months Detained

An immigration judge has granted bond to Beata Siemionkowicz, a Chicago-area green card holder from Poland whom ICE has held since August 2025, ruling that the government failed to show she is dangerous or likely to flee. The green card holder bond decision came Friday in the Memphis Immigration Court, the Chicago Tribune reported, three days after a federal judge in Kentucky ordered the hearing and put the burden of proof on the government. Whether she actually leaves the Campbell County Detention Center in northern Kentucky now depends largely on whether DHS appeals.

The hearing exists only because of the Nov. 3 order in Siemionkowicz v. Daley, covered here when it issued. The federal court found that holding her under the mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), for more than a year with no hearing at all violated due process. It gave immigration authorities seven days to hold one and required the government to justify continued custody by clear and convincing evidence. That reverses the usual rule, under which a detainee must persuade the judge that she is neither a danger nor a flight risk.

When the Supreme Court upheld mandatory detention in Demore v. Kim in 2003, it described such detention as lasting “roughly a month and a half in the vast majority of cases” and “about five months” when the detainee appeals. Measured from her Aug. 2, 2025 arrest, Siemionkowicz has been held about 15 months, three times the longer figure.

“The court finds that the department has failed to establish that the respondent is a danger or flight risk,” the immigration judge wrote, according to the Tribune, which identified her as Angelica Powers. ICE has cited two misdemeanor retail theft cases, from 2005 and 2011, which it treats as crimes involving moral turpitude, along with an alleged 2001 document forgery. The judge found the misdemeanors were not enough to show danger, the newspaper reported. The Tribune did not report the bond amount or any conditions, and said DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Before the hearing, ICE told the paper it makes custody determinations “daily, on a case-by-case basis in accordance with U.S. law.”

“I’m not surprised that Beata found a sympathetic ear,” Hirsh Joshi, an ACLU of Illinois attorney representing her, told the Tribune. “My only hope is to get Beata out as soon as we can.”

Why a bond grant is not yet a release

An immigration judge’s custody ruling can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Federal regulations at 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(i)(2) also let DHS automatically stay a release order in cases where it had decided the person should be held without bond, if it files notice within one business day. Using that tool here would sit uneasily with a federal court order that demanded a meaningful hearing, and the district court is still watching: the government owes it a status report on the hearing and its outcome by Nov. 17.

The board has shown it is willing to undo release orders. In a precedent decision this month, Matter of Cruz Aijiaco, 30 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 2026), it vacated an immigration judge’s $8,000 bond and ordered a man held without bond, treating repeated unlicensed driving as evidence of flight risk. That case did not involve a federal court order shifting the burden to the government, which is the feature that decided this one.

Bond would also not end her removal case. An immigration judge ordered her removed to Poland on Dec. 9, 2025, according to DHS, and LINK nky reported in September that her appeal was pending at the board. If the board affirms and the order becomes final, detention authority shifts to a different statute, 8 U.S.C. 1231, which governs custody of people with final removal orders, and ICE could seek to detain her again to carry out removal.

The larger question is headed to the Supreme Court. In June, the justices agreed to decide whether the government may hold noncitizens for prolonged periods without a bond hearing, in a Second Circuit case brought by two green card holders, one held about seven months and the other nearly two years, CNN reported. The government is also contesting the heightened evidentiary standard the Second Circuit imposed, the same kind of burden that decided Siemionkowicz’s hearing. Joshi called her case “emblematic of a larger problem that the Supreme Court has already agreed that it wants to hear.” Until the justices rule, permanent residents in long mandatory detention will keep getting different answers depending on which district court hears their petitions, as recent court-ordered releases and a separate mandatory detention fight show.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds an LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Diego and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts