Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What is the process for a green card holder to appeal an ICE detention decision in 2025?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, the process for a green card holder to appeal an ICE detention decision in 2025 involves multiple potential pathways, though the sources reveal significant gaps in comprehensive information.
Primary Appeal Mechanism:
Green card holders can file Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion with the USCIS office that issued the detention decision [1]. This form must be submitted within 30 calendar days of the date of service of the adverse decision, or within 33 calendar days if the decision was mailed [1].
Alternative Appeal Route:
The Form EOIR 29, Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a Decision of a DHS Officer, may also be relevant for appealing ICE detention decisions [2].
Legal Precedent Impact:
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Justice cannot unilaterally revoke a green card, which may significantly impact how green card holders can challenge ICE detention decisions [3].
Current Legal Context:
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed by President Trump has expanded immigration detention, increased funding for immigration enforcement, and imposed new fees on humanitarian protections and immigration processing forms, potentially affecting the appeal process for green card holders [4].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Enforcement Environment Changes:
The analyses reveal that ICE is now making arrests directly in immigration courts, creating a more hostile environment for immigrants seeking legal remedies [5]. This represents a significant shift in enforcement tactics that could complicate the appeal process.
Expanded Mandatory Detention:
The sources indicate there has been an expansion of mandatory detention under current policies [6], which may limit the circumstances under which green card holders can successfully appeal detention decisions.
Case-Specific Complexities:
The case of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder whose legal team requested immediate release citing "false and pretextual allegations," demonstrates that appeals may involve challenging the underlying basis for detention rather than just the detention decision itself [7].
Procedural Gaps:
While the sources identify specific forms for appeals, they lack detailed information about the actual procedural steps, required documentation, legal representation requirements, or success rates for green card holder appeals [8] [6].
Financial Barriers:
The OBBBA has imposed new fees on immigration processing forms, which could create additional financial barriers for green card holders seeking to appeal detention decisions [4].
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it is a straightforward inquiry about legal processes. However, the question may inadvertently suggest that there is a clear, standardized process for green card holders to appeal ICE detention decisions.
Oversimplification Risk:
The question implies there is a single, well-defined process, when the analyses reveal that the appeal mechanisms may vary depending on which agency issued the detention decision and under what specific circumstances [1] [2].
Timing Assumptions:
The question asks specifically about 2025 processes, but the analyses show that recent policy changes under the OBBBA have significantly altered the immigration enforcement landscape, making historical precedents potentially less reliable [4].
Access to Information Bias:
The question assumes that clear information about appeal processes is readily available, but the analyses demonstrate that comprehensive guidance on this specific scenario is notably absent from official sources, potentially leaving green card holders without adequate information to exercise their rights effectively [6] [5].