Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c)
How INA §236(c) identifies criminal and security categories subject to mandatory detention while removal proceedings remain pending.
INA §236(c)(1) identifies specified inadmissibility and deportability categories subject to mandatory detention. A person properly included in §236(c) generally is not eligible for ordinary Immigration Judge bond redetermination. The mandatory-detention inquiry is distinct from the ultimate merits determination on removability.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c)
How INA §236(c) identifies criminal and security categories subject to mandatory detention while removal proceedings remain pending.
mandatory-detention-overview analysis treats mandatory detention INA 236(c) as a distinct custody issue whose answer depends on the governing detention statute, jurisdiction, and procedural posture.
mandatory-detention-overview preparation should identify whether the case is under §236(a), §236(c), or §241, and should build a custody record separate from the removal merits record.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 1
INA §236(c)(1) identifies specified inadmissibility and deportability categories subject to mandatory detention. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling.
mandatory-detention-overview source review should confirm mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview current statutes, regulations, BIA precedent, Supreme Court law, and circuit law should be checked before filing. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required.
mandatory-detention-overview jurisdiction review should frame mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview counsel should confirm whether the Immigration Judge may redetermine custody before litigating bond amount. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-1; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 2
A person properly included in §236(c) generally is not eligible for ordinary Immigration Judge bond redetermination. mandatory-detention-overview jurisdiction review should frame mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview counsel should confirm whether the Immigration Judge may redetermine custody before litigating bond amount. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely.
mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts. mandatory-detention-overview briefing should explain mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview pre-order bond, mandatory detention, and post-order detention should not be conflated. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly. mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture.
mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview post-order review should consider mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview removal efforts, travel documents, stays, and custody-review history should appear on the timeline. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-2; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 3
The mandatory-detention inquiry is distinct from the ultimate merits determination on removability. mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview post-order review should consider mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview removal efforts, travel documents, stays, and custody-review history should appear on the timeline. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance.
mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview source review should confirm mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview current statutes, regulations, BIA precedent, Supreme Court law, and circuit law should be checked before filing. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant.
mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required. mandatory-detention-overview jurisdiction review should frame mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview counsel should confirm whether the Immigration Judge may redetermine custody before litigating bond amount. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-3; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 4
The custody record should identify the statutory paragraph DHS contends applies and the relevant criminal or immigration events. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required. mandatory-detention-overview jurisdiction review should frame mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview counsel should confirm whether the Immigration Judge may redetermine custody before litigating bond amount. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged.
mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts. mandatory-detention-overview briefing should explain mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview pre-order bond, mandatory detention, and post-order detention should not be conflated. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly.
mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture. mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview post-order review should consider mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview removal efforts, travel documents, stays, and custody-review history should appear on the timeline. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-4; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 5
A Joseph-type custody challenge can test whether the person is properly included in the mandatory-detention category. mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture. mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview post-order review should consider mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview removal efforts, travel documents, stays, and custody-review history should appear on the timeline.
mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview source review should confirm mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview current statutes, regulations, BIA precedent, Supreme Court law, and circuit law should be checked before filing.
mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required. mandatory-detention-overview jurisdiction review should frame mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-5; mandatory-detention-overview counsel should confirm whether the Immigration Judge may redetermine custody before litigating bond amount.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 6
INA §236(c)(1) identifies specified inadmissibility and deportability categories subject to mandatory detention. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required.
mandatory-detention-overview jurisdiction review should frame mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview counsel should confirm whether the Immigration Judge may redetermine custody before litigating bond amount. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts.
mandatory-detention-overview briefing should explain mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview pre-order bond, mandatory detention, and post-order detention should not be conflated. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly. mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture. mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-6; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 7
A person properly included in §236(c) generally is not eligible for ordinary Immigration Judge bond redetermination. mandatory-detention-overview briefing should explain mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview pre-order bond, mandatory detention, and post-order detention should not be conflated. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly. mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture.
mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview post-order review should consider mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview removal efforts, travel documents, stays, and custody-review history should appear on the timeline. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk.
mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview source review should confirm mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview current statutes, regulations, BIA precedent, Supreme Court law, and circuit law should be checked before filing. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-7; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 8
The mandatory-detention inquiry is distinct from the ultimate merits determination on removability. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview source review should confirm mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview current statutes, regulations, BIA precedent, Supreme Court law, and circuit law should be checked before filing. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant.
mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required. mandatory-detention-overview jurisdiction review should frame mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview counsel should confirm whether the Immigration Judge may redetermine custody before litigating bond amount. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities.
mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts. mandatory-detention-overview briefing should explain mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview pre-order bond, mandatory detention, and post-order detention should not be conflated. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly. mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-8; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 9
The custody record should identify the statutory paragraph DHS contends applies and the relevant criminal or immigration events. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts. mandatory-detention-overview briefing should explain mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview pre-order bond, mandatory detention, and post-order detention should not be conflated. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly.
mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture. mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview post-order review should consider mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview removal efforts, travel documents, stays, and custody-review history should appear on the timeline. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order.
mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview source review should confirm mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview current statutes, regulations, BIA precedent, Supreme Court law, and circuit law should be checked before filing. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-9; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records.
Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c): Issue 10
A Joseph-type custody challenge can test whether the person is properly included in the mandatory-detention category. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview source review should confirm mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview current statutes, regulations, BIA precedent, Supreme Court law, and circuit law should be checked before filing.
mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required. mandatory-detention-overview jurisdiction review should frame mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview counsel should confirm whether the Immigration Judge may redetermine custody before litigating bond amount.
mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts. mandatory-detention-overview briefing should explain mandatory-detention-236c-overview-issue-10; mandatory-detention-overview pre-order bond, mandatory detention, and post-order detention should not be conflated.
Custody Chronology: Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c)
mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant.
mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance.
mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record. mandatory-detention-overview hearing strategy should develop mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview witnesses should address concrete danger or appearance facts rather than generic equities. mandatory-detention-overview closing argument should synthesize mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview requested custody relief should be stated in procedural terms the adjudicator can grant. mandatory-detention-overview evidence should document mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview criminal records, address proof, family evidence, employment, relief posture, and custody records should be organized by legal relevance. mandatory-detention-overview bond-record preparation should support mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-11; mandatory-detention-overview information borrowed from the merits record should be identified clearly in the separate custody record.
Bond Evidence Plan: Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c)
mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling.
mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable.
mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts. mandatory-detention-overview burden review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the decision should state who carries the burden and what showing is required. mandatory-detention-overview changed-circumstances review should assess mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview a subsequent request should identify what materially changed since the prior custody ruling. mandatory-detention-overview decision drafting should resolve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the ruling should state custody jurisdiction, danger, flight risk, and bond amount separately when applicable. mandatory-detention-overview appellate preservation should record mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-12; mandatory-detention-overview the custody record should permit Board or federal-court review without reconstructing missing facts.
Hearing and Appeal Strategy: Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c)
mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order.
mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly.
mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged. mandatory-detention-overview factual audit should revisit mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview assumptions about criminal custody or release should be replaced with certified or reliable records. mandatory-detention-overview analysis should begin with mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview proof should identify the governing detention statute and current custody order. mandatory-detention-overview danger analysis should evaluate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview allegations, convictions, recency, rehabilitation, and context should be addressed directly. mandatory-detention-overview appeal planning should preserve mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-13; mandatory-detention-overview the notice of appeal should identify the exact custody ruling and issues challenged.
Federal Review Preservation: Mandatory Detention Under INA §236(c)
mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture.
mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely.
mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately. mandatory-detention-overview flight-risk analysis should examine mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview residence, family ties, hearing history, immigration record, and relief incentives should be connected to appearance risk. mandatory-detention-overview statutory analysis should verify mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview the detention authority should be matched to the respondent's current procedural posture. mandatory-detention-overview mandatory-detention review should test mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview the claimed §236(c) category and release event should be identified precisely. mandatory-detention-overview chronology should isolate mandatory-detention-236c-overview-practice-14; mandatory-detention-overview criminal release, DHS arrest, bond hearing, merits decision, and final-order dates should be charted separately.
Primary Legal Authorities and Sources
- 8 U.S.C. §1226 — Apprehension and Detention Pending Removal Decision Primary statute governing discretionary detention under INA §236(a) and mandatory detention under INA §236(c).
- 8 C.F.R. §1003.19 — Custody/Bond Current regulation governing Immigration Judge custody redetermination, jurisdiction, changed circumstances, and stays.
- EOIR Precedent Decisions — Volume 22 Official EOIR source containing Matter of Joseph and Matter of Adeniji.
- EOIR Precedent Decisions — Volume 23 Official EOIR source containing Matter of Rojas.
- Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392 (2019) Supreme Court decision holding that delayed immigration arrest after release from criminal custody does not remove a person from §1226(c).
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) Supreme Court precedent addressing mandatory detention of certain criminal noncitizens during removal proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main rule for mandatory detention INA 236(c)?
Which detention statute controls mandatory detention INA 236(c)?
Who has the burden in a mandatory detention INA 236(c) case?
What evidence matters most for mandatory detention INA 236(c)?
Can an Immigration Judge always set bond in a mandatory detention INA 236(c) case?
How should mandatory detention INA 236(c) be preserved for review?
Related INA237.com Guides
Need Help With a Removal Case?
If you have an NTA, immigration court notice, USCIS denial, ICE document, or criminal record relevant to possible removability, keep a complete copy available for review.
Request a Consultation