Immigration bond in Wisconsin in 2026: who has the right to ask for a bond hearing?

Short answer: in Wisconsin, today, most people detained by ICE who do not have certain criminal records or a prior deportation order can ask an immigration judge for a bond hearing. Since July 2026 that includes people who entered without inspection years ago and live here, thanks to a decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Rojas v. Olson. At the hearing, the person has to show two things: that they are not a danger to the community and that they will show up for their court dates. The legal minimum bond is $1,500. What follows explains who qualifies, who does not, and which documents make the difference.

One warning before we start: this area of the law changes every few months. On October 1, 2026, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the central question of Rojas in another case. This article reflects the law in Wisconsin as of October 13, 2026.

Three statutes, three situations

When ICE detains someone, the most important question is not "how much will the bond be" but "under which statute are they holding this person." There are three possibilities, and each leads down a different path.

1. Detention with a right to bond: section 1226(a). This is the general rule for people who live in the country and are in removal proceedings. The statute says ICE "may" detain them or "may" release them on a bond "of at least $1,500" or on their own recognizance (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). An ICE officer decides first. If ICE denies bond or sets it very high, the person can ask an immigration judge to review it (8 C.F.R. § 1003.19). That review is the "bond hearing."

2. Mandatory detention for certain crimes: section 1226(c). For certain convictions, and in some cases for certain charges or arrests, the statute says ICE "shall" detain the person, and the immigration judge cannot set bond (8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)). We explain which ones below.

3. Detention of someone "seeking admission": section 1225(b)(2)(A). This statute was written for the border: a person who arrives at a port of entry and does not show "clearly and beyond a doubt" that they are entitled to enter "shall be detained" while the case is decided (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)). There is no bond before the immigration judge here. The legal fight of 2025 and 2026 has been whether this statute also applies to someone who entered without inspection years ago and lives in the interior of the country.

People who entered without inspection: what Rojas v. Olson changed

For decades, the government detained people who entered without inspection under section 1226(a), with the right to ask for bond. In 2025 it changed position: it began to say that everyone who entered without inspection is an "applicant for admission" and therefore falls under section 1225 with no bond. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that reading in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), and many immigration judges began saying they had no authority to set bond. A federal court in California vacated that decision in a class action, but that order is stayed pending appeal; most federal courts of appeals have rejected the government's reading, and yet the Board continues to apply it.

On July 30, 2026, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, rejected that reading in a case that began in the federal court in Milwaukee. The court held that section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to applicants for admission who are also "seeking admission," and that a person who entered without inspection years ago and applies for asylum or withholding is not "seeking admission." The case was decided for someone applying for asylum; expect the government to argue that someone applying for residence (adjustment of status) is "seeking admission." That point is still being litigated. In its words, the person "is therefore not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and is eligible for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)" (Rojas v. Olson, No. 25-3127 (7th Cir. July 30, 2026), full opinion). The decision was 2 to 1, with Judge Sykes dissenting, and both the majority and the dissent expressed the hope that the Supreme Court will settle the issue nationwide.

That is what happened on October 1, 2026: the Supreme Court agreed to review the same question in a New York case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104 (docket). There is no argument date yet; the Court usually decides each term's cases by the end of June. In the meantime, Rojas is the binding decision in Wisconsin, unless it is stayed or overturned. That is why, if a family member is detained and entered without inspection, it makes sense to ask for the bond hearing soon. But soon does not mean blind: a second request is granted only if circumstances have changed materially (8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e)), so the first hearing should arrive with the file prepared.

What to do if the immigration judge, despite Rojas, says there is no authority: ask for the decision in writing and talk to a lawyer about a petition for habeas corpus in federal court. It is a separate lawsuit with its own timeline: Mr. Rojas lost first in the district court and won on appeal months later. We explain it in our article on habeas corpus and ICE detention in Wisconsin.

Who may still be in mandatory detention

Rojas does not open the door for everyone. These are the situations in which, as a general rule, the immigration judge cannot set bond:

• Certain criminal records (section 1226(c)). The statute requires detention of a person who is inadmissible or deportable for certain offenses. For someone who entered without inspection, the list is broader than people think: one conviction (or, in some cases, admitting the facts) of a "crime involving moral turpitude" or a drug offense that makes the person inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) is enough (8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A)). Other crime-based inadmissibility grounds also count, for example when the authorities have "reason to believe" the person has trafficked drugs, even without a conviction (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)). For someone who was lawfully admitted, the deportability categories apply: aggravated felony, two crimes involving moral turpitude, drugs, firearms, certain national-security crimes, or one crime involving moral turpitude with a sentence of a year or more (§ 1226(c)(1)(B)–(C)). A domestic violence conviction is not on that list by itself, although it can fall within it if it counts as a crime involving moral turpitude or an aggravated felony. There is a "petty offense" exception that can save some people; it is a technical analysis that requires the conviction record.
• The Laken Riley Act (2025). Since January 2025, a person who entered without inspection (or who is inadmissible for fraud or for lacking valid documents) and is charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, or admits committing, burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person is in mandatory detention, even without a conviction yet (8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E)). A pending retail theft charge in Wisconsin can be enough.
• A prior deportation order. If the person was already deported, or left under an order and re-entered, ICE can "reinstate" the earlier order. In that case there is no new removal proceeding and no bond hearing before the immigration judge; detention is governed by section 1231 (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021)). If the person expresses fear of returning to their country, they may get a "reasonable fear" interview and a limited withholding-only proceeding before the judge, but still without bond.
• People detained on arrival at a port of entry or in expedited removal. Section 1225 still applies to them as written.
• Terrorism and national security (§ 1226(c)(1)(D)).

Even within mandatory detention there is a way out: the person can ask the judge to decide whether ICE classified them correctly. It is called a Joseph hearing (Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(h)(2)(ii)). If it is "substantially unlikely" that the government can prove the conviction is one of those that require detention, the person comes off the list and can ask for bond. Joseph was written for permanent residents, but the regulation lets any detained person request it. Some Wisconsin convictions that ICE treats as "crimes involving moral turpitude" or "aggravated felonies" are not, once the exact statute of conviction is examined.

What the judge decides: danger and flight risk

At the bond hearing, the law places the burden on the detained person, not on the government (8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8); Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102 (BIA 1999)). The judge first asks whether the person is a danger to the community; if so, there is no bond, regardless of anything else. Only if the person is not a danger does the judge move to the second question: flight risk, that is, whether the person will appear at every hearing (Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140 (BIA 2009)).

The judge looks at the whole picture, with broad discretion. The factors the Board of Immigration Appeals has identified include, among others: family ties; employment history; whether the person has a fixed address; criminal record, including how recent and how extensive; prior immigration violations; attempts to flee from authorities; and manner of entry and length of time in the country (Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006)). Community ties and the real likelihood of obtaining immigration relief also weigh (Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803, 805 (BIA 2020)).

Three practical rules about the amount. The minimum bond is $1,500 and there is no maximum. If ICE set a bond and the person pays it, no hearing is needed. One important warning: when ICE set no bond (or set it at $10,000 or more) and the judge later orders release, the government can freeze that order by filing a notice of appeal (Form EOIR-43) within one business day, and the person stays detained while the Board decides (8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2)). That is exactly what happened to Mr. Rojas. And if the judge sets a bond, it is usually paid by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (or a non-profit organization or a law firm) through ICE's electronic system (CeBONDS), by bank transfer. The person who pays signs a contract with the government and is liable for the full amount if the detainee misses a single appointment; a person without status should not try to pay it. If the bond ICE set is paid and the family later wants it lowered, there are only 7 days after release to ask the judge (8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1)).

Danger to the community

Criminal history weighs here, but not only convictions. The judge may consider pending charges, arrests, and conduct that never led to a conviction (Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. at 40–41). A frequent Wisconsin example is drunk driving: the Board has said that driving under the influence is a significant adverse factor in assessing danger, that the judge may consider both convictions and arrests, and that family and community ties generally do not reduce dangerousness (Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207, 207–09 (BIA 2018)). In that case, three prior convictions (two involving accidents) plus a recent arrest were enough to deny bond, despite ten years without a conviction, medical treatment, and family with status. That a first OWI in Wisconsin is a civil forfeiture and not a crime does not change that before the immigration judge, even though it does not count as a "conviction" for removal purposes. A pattern of driving without a license, even if not a serious offense, is also used against the person.

What can help, with no guarantee: time elapsed since the last problem, having complied with everything the criminal court ordered (fines, classes, conditions), and concrete proof of rehabilitation (treatment completed, not just started). Family and community letters do more for flight risk than for danger. What hurts more than any record: hiding it. The judge has ICE's file. And one caution: if there is a pending charge, do not explain it yourself at the hearing without your lawyer having prepared it; what is admitted at a bond hearing can be used against you, and in certain cases can trigger mandatory detention.

Flight risk

Here the question is simple: does this person have strong reasons to stay and appear? What weighs most:

• A fixed address and a sponsor. A citizen or permanent resident who states in writing where the detained person will live, with proof of status and address.
• Family with status: spouse, children, parents who are citizens or residents, with the certificates that prove it.
• Years in the country and work: tax returns, pay stubs, employer letter.
• A record of compliance: having attended every prior court, ICE, or criminal-court appointment. A prior "in absentia" removal order, or a missed appointment, weighs heavily against the person.
• Viable immigration relief: an approved family petition, an asylum case with substance, eligibility for cancellation of removal. If the person has something real to win in court, the judge understands they have reasons to appear. When relief is weak and ties are few, the Board has upheld bond denials (Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020)).

Criminal history: the three questions

With a record, the analysis goes in this order:

1. Does the conviction require detention (section 1226(c))? This is decided with the exact statute of conviction and the case documents (certified judgment, charges, plea agreement), not with what the person remembers or what appears online. If the answer is no, or if the government can hardly prove it, there is a bond hearing.
2. Is there a pending charge? An open charge, especially one covered by the Laken Riley Act, can close the door to bond by itself. The immigration lawyer and the criminal lawyer must talk before any guilty plea.
3. How is the record presented to the judge? Complete, with the official documents, with what the person did afterward, and with context. A judge who sees that the person complied with the criminal court and has had no further problems has a basis to find no danger.

Which documents help

Gather these from day one. Everything can start as phone photos, with copies delivered later:

• Sponsor letter (who they are, their status, where they live, that the person will live with them, that they will bring the person to appointments) with a copy of their passport or green card, ID, and proof of address.
• Proof of family: children's birth certificates, marriage certificate, each relative's status.
• Proof of years in the country: taxes, W-2s, pay stubs, leases, bills, medical and school records, employer letter.
• Support letters (five to eight) from relatives, neighbors, church, employer, signed, dated, with a copy of the writer's ID.
• Complete record: certified judgment for every criminal or traffic case, proof of paid fines, class or treatment certificates.
• Immigration history: any entry document, any ICE or immigration-court paper, prior applications, and any prior removal order.
• Health and dependency: medical letters, proof that someone depends on the person.
• The bond money: who will pay and proof of funds.

Our downloadable family emergency plan has a checklist for having these papers ready before they are needed.

Where and when

People detained by ICE in Wisconsin are usually held in county jails under contract with ICE, and their cases are often handled by the Chicago Immigration Court. The bond request may be made in writing or orally before the judge (8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(b)), and the hearing is separate from the removal case: what is said there does not decide the merits (§ 1003.19(d)). If the judge denies bond, there is an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals: the appeal (Form EOIR-26) must be received by the Board within 30 calendar days of the judge's decision (8 C.F.R. §§ 1236.1(d)(3), 1003.38(b)–(c)). Caution: in February 2026 EOIR published a rule to shorten that deadline to 10 days, but a federal court vacated it on March 8, 2026, before it took effect, and EOIR itself instructed judges that the correct deadline remains 30 days (EOIR, PM 26-02, March 13, 2026). Some websites still show the 10-day text; do not rely on them. Apart from the appeal, a new hearing may be requested, in writing, if circumstances change materially (§ 1003.19(e)). Every day counts: ICE transfers people, and a habeas corpus petition is filed in the district where the person is held (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004)), under that place's law. Several courts of appeals agree with Rojas, but others have ruled for the government or have the issue under review; among them, the courts covering Texas and Louisiana, and the one covering Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and the Dakotas. Filing the petition while the person is in Wisconsin helps keep the case here.

Common questions

My relative entered without papers ten years ago. Can they ask for bond? In Wisconsin, today, yes, under Rojas v. Olson, unless they have a record that requires detention or a prior deportation order. The Supreme Court will review the issue; that is why it makes sense to ask for the hearing now.

How much is an immigration bond? The legal minimum is $1,500. The judge sets the amount based on the risk they see; there is no fixed schedule.

ICE set a very high bond. Can it be lowered? Yes. You ask the immigration judge for a bond redetermination. The judge can lower it, raise it, or leave it the same.

Does an OWI take away the bond? Not automatically. It is a significant adverse "danger to the community" factor, and the judge may consider even an arrest without a conviction. It has to be presented with context and with what the person did afterward.

What if the judge says there is no authority to grant bond? Ask for the decision in writing. In Wisconsin, that denial can be taken to federal court by habeas corpus, the path the Rojas case followed; it is a separate lawsuit and takes time.

---

General information, not legal advice about your case. Immigration detention and bond rules change often; this article reflects the law in Wisconsin as of October 13, 2026. Every case depends on its facts; no result is promised. If a family member is detained, call (414) 748-3344.

Sources: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(1), (b)(2)(A), 1226(a), (c), 1231(a)(5); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19, 1003.38, 1236.1(c)(8), (d); EOIR, OOD PM 26-02 (Mar. 13, 2026); Amica Ctr. for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, No. 26-cv-696 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2026); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004); Rojas v. Olson, No. 25-3127 (7th Cir. July 30, 2026); Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104 (U.S. cert. granted Oct. 1, 2026); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021); Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025); Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020); Matter of Siniauskas, 27 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2018); Matter of Urena, 25 I&N Dec. 140 (BIA 2009); Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006); Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102 (BIA 1999); Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999); Laken Riley Act, Pub. L. No. 119-1 (2025).

← All articles