Summary: In late 2025, multiple reports from attorneys and newsrooms documented a new and expanding practice: ICE arresting I‑485 applicants (often spouses of U.S. citizens) during or immediately after their adjustment interviews at USCIS field offices. Incidents were first clustered in San Diego and then reported in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, and other cities. Several federal judges have already issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) or granted habeas relief, ordering releases. If you (or your client) have a scheduled green card interview and previously overstayed or worked without authorization, seek legal protection in advance. Gondim Law Corp has secured protective relief and rapid releases for affected families. [nbcsandiego.com], [kpbs.org], [fox5sandiego.com], [kuer.org]
What’s happening — and where
- San Diego: Attorneys and local media documented a wave of arrests beginning around Nov. 12, 2025, including cases involving military spouses and applicants with no criminal history, detained during or just after their marriage‑based interviews at the downtown USCIS office. [nbcsandiego.com], [kpbs.org]
- Pattern spreading: Follow‑on reports and attorney advisories indicate similar arrests in other USCIS jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Francisco, and Salt Lake City, with at least one on‑the‑record arrest at the Salt Lake City field office in early December 2025. [kuer.org], [visaverge.com]
- Context matters: Investigations and legal tracking projects describe this as an abrupt shift from longstanding practice, not a change in the statute—raising questions about inter‑agency coordination at USCIS facilities. [immpolicyt…acking.org], [visalawyerblog.com]
Key detail: Reports describe ICE officers waiting inside or adjacent to interview spaces, entering rooms after USCIS questioning concludes, and handcuffing applicants based primarily on visa overstay or “out‑of‑status” determinations, even where applicants are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. [nbcsandiego.com], [kpbs.org]
Why this is unlawful: A short legal analysis
1) I‑485 applicants are in a “period of authorized stay.”
When a properly filed Form I‑485 is pending, applicants are generally in a period of authorized stay for immigration purposes—even if they previously fell out of nonimmigrant status. Arresting applicants at benefit interviews treats them as “present without authorization” despite their pending adjudication. While USCIS’s Policy Manual details bars under INA § 245(c)(2)/(c)(8), it expressly exempts immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the status/unauthorized‑employment bars, underscoring Congress’s design to channel these cases through adjudication, not detention. [uscis.gov], [ecfr.gov]
2) The INA and APA framework protects the path to adjustment.
Congress created an explicit adjustment pathway for immediate relatives under INA § 245(a), and the § 245(c)(2)/(c)(8) bars do not apply to immediate relatives. Pre‑interview or historical unauthorized employment and status violations are therefore not disqualifying in this category, and agency actions that frustrate this statutory scheme are susceptible to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges as arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. [uscis.gov], [ecfr.gov]
3) A USCIS interview cannot lawfully be used as a “trap.”
Litigation and unsealed documents from Calderon v. Nielsen exposed prior DHS coordination to time arrests at USCIS interviews, which federal courts scrutinized under constitutional and APA theories. The ACLU’s New England litigation led to class‑wide relief and a settlement approved in 2025, recognizing that using the benefits process to facilitate arrests undermines families’ access to congressionally authorized relief. That history is highly persuasive authority against reviving similar tactics now. [aclum.org], [acluct.org], [riaclu.org]
Bottom line: For spouses of U.S. citizens or parents of adult U.S. citizens, overstay or past unauthorized employment typically does not bar adjustment; weaponizing the interview to detain such applicants contradicts the INA’s structure and invites APA and constitutional challenges. [uscis.gov], [citizenpath.com]
Early court responses: TROs and habeas orders
- Federal courts have stepped in. District judges have granted TROs halting certain ICE sweeps and practices, and habeas petitions have secured immediate releases from ICE custody—confirming judicial skepticism when enforcement tactics collide with due process and statutory pathways to status. [dailyjournal.com], [dmcausa.com]
- Historical precedent matters. Calderon‑related decisions and filings documented DHS coordination to arrest people after USCIS interviews; those cases produced stays, releases, and ultimately a class settlement—a roadmap for emergency relief today when similar tactics reappear. [aclum.org], [acluct.org]
Practice note: Separate Ninth Circuit litigation (e.g., Gonzalez v. ICE) highlights constitutional constraints on civil immigration arrests/detainers and the need for probable cause and timely neutral review, reinforcing that wholesale, warrantless tactics will face judicial pushback. [cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov], [ilrc.org]
Action steps if you (or your client) have a USCIS marriage‑based green card interview
- Pre‑interview risk audit.
Have counsel review status history, any prior removal orders, criminal records (if any), prior entries/exits, and all DHS databases for mismatches that could flag risk. (Back‑end database errors have fueled unlawful detainers in past litigation.) [ilrc.org] - Secure counsel presence and a contingency plan.
Ensure an attorney is physically present at the interview and that a TRO/habeas packet (with declarations, exhibits, and proposed orders) is ready in case detention occurs. Recent court wins show speed matters. [dmcausa.com] - Proactive protective filings where warranted.
Consider seeking pre‑interview protective relief (e.g., a TRO or order preserving the status quo), especially for immediate relatives with overstays or old EWI/245(i) issues. The Calderon line of cases shows judges will intervene where the benefits process is being subverted. [aclum.org], [acluct.org] - Know your statutory defenses.
Document that the applicant is an “immediate relative” under INA § 201(b) adjusting under § 245(a), and thus exempt from § 245(c)(2)/(c)(8) bars (status & unauthorized employment). Keep USCIS Policy Manual citations and 8 C.F.R. Part 245 handy for on‑the‑spot advocacy. [uscis.gov], [ecfr.gov] - If detention happens:
Activate counsel’s emergency plan: immediate TRO/habeas filing in federal court, parallel ICE ERO engagement, and documentation of USCIS interview conduct. Recent reporting confirms detainees are often moved quickly to facilities (e.g., Otay Mesa in SD), so timely filings are critical. [visaverge.com]
Why this matters for the rule of law and for communities
- Statutory fidelity: Congress built a forgiving path for immediate relatives—particularly spouses of U.S. citizens—precisely to avoid family separation over technical status lapses. Detaining applicants at the threshold of approval runs against that design. [uscis.gov]
- Chilling effect: Turning USCIS interviews into arrest points deters lawful participation in the benefits system, undermines public trust, and risks due process violations—concerns already spotlighted in prior litigation and policy analysis. [aclum.org], [migrationpolicy.org]
Gondim Law Corp: Proven strategies that protect families
Our team has successfully protected immigrants from interview‑day arrests and secured rapid releases where ICE detained I‑485 applicants—including by obtaining emergency court orders and coordinating with federal agencies. If you have an upcoming USCIS interview and a history of overstay or unauthorized work, do not go alone. We can help you assess risk, prepare protective filings, and stand by your side at the interview.
Free strategy call (time‑sensitive): If your interview is within the next 14–30 days, contact Gondim Law Corp immediately to evaluate TRO/habeas readiness and on‑site counsel coverage.