Federal Court Denies Bond for Louisville Mother in ICE Custody

A Federal court judge denied release for Armelle Bondonga at the habeas stage, leaving the 21-year-old Louisville mother in ICE custody while further proceedings continue. She is being held at the Clark County jail in Jeffersonville, Indiana.

Reporting on September 1, 2026, said the judge denied bond and delayed Bondonga’s federal hearing. Her lawyers have continued seeking her release, either without payment or through a bond amount they would try to raise.

Bondonga’s detention began after a routine immigration appointment. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained her on August 12, 2026, during a final marriage-based green card interview attended by her husband, Terrance Bradshaw, a U.S. citizen.

Her attorney Arianit Osmani said she came voluntarily and was not trying to avoid the immigration system.

“Armelle was not hiding from immigration authorities or attempting to evade the immigration system.”

Osmani also said Bondonga “voluntarily appeared with her husband for the scheduled [USCIS] interview to pursue her marriage-based immigration case through the lawful process.”

The petition sought release, but the judge limited the federal court’s role

Louisville attorney Hishem Alsalman filed Bondonga’s habeas petition on August 19, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The filing argued that her arrest and detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The petition also argued that detaining a person at an adjustment-of-status interview conflicts with an INA provision allowing people to seek a change of status without leaving the United States. Bondonga’s lawyers framed the interview as a lawful step in her marriage-based immigration case.

The judge took an initial step on August 21, 2026. The order gave the government seven days to respond and barred Bondonga’s transfer outside the court’s jurisdiction without permission.

The later bond ruling turned on jurisdiction, according to additional reporting about the case. The judge did not order Bondonga’s release through the federal challenge, and the case remained active while she stayed detained.

Bond proceedings continued in Indiana as lawyers sought a path out of detention

Bondonga’s legal team prepared for a bond hearing scheduled for Monday in Indianapolis. On August 28, 2026, attorneys requested release without payment if the immigration court could grant it.

They also prepared to raise funds if officials required a bond amount. The hearing was delayed as the federal court proceeding moved forward.

Bondonga remained in Indiana during the dispute. The immediate questions involved both her eligibility for release and which court could decide that issue.

Key dates in the case

ICE cites a removal order while Bondonga’s lawyers challenge the detention

Bondonga was born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and came to the United States legally as an asylum seeker in September 2013. Her visa expired in March 2014, according to the agency.

An ICE spokesperson said Bondonga “overstayed her welcome in violation of our nation’s immigration laws.” The spokesperson also said she had received due process.

“On Nov. 6, 2025, she was given a final order of removal by an immigration judge. She received due process.”

The agency said the removal order came before Bondonga’s August 12 detention. Her lawyers, meanwhile, challenged the legal basis for arresting her at the adjustment interview.

Osmani said Bondonga’s appearance with Bradshaw showed that she was pursuing the case openly. The couple attended the interview together, and supporters said their young child was present.

The case involves a marriage-based green card application, but the record also includes a prior removal order asserted by ICE. Those competing positions now shape the litigation over custody.

The detention dispute sits inside a wider fight over bond eligibility

People held by immigration authorities commonly seek bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Eligibility can change when the Department of Homeland Security classifies a detainee under a mandatory-detention provision.

Those provisions include 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Courts have issued mixed rulings across circuits in 2026 over when those rules require detention and when a bond hearing remains available.

The governing circuit may affect the result. So can the person’s posture in removal proceedings and the custody provision DHS invokes.

A detainee may therefore face different procedures depending on the legal basis for custody. In some cases, the alternative to a federal release order is review before an immigration judge or continued habeas litigation, depending on the custody basis and any applicable detention bar.

Bond hearings also differ from the underlying removal case. A custody decision addresses whether a person may remain outside detention while proceedings continue, while the removal case addresses the person’s immigration status and ability to remain in the United States.

Supporters pressed officials to release a mother with no reported criminal history

Kentucky elected officials criticized the detention and described the case as “cruel and unjust.” Charles Booker, a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, said he was “disturbed” by Bondonga’s detention.

Her attorneys and supporters emphasized that she appeared lawfully for the interview, accompanied by her husband and young child. They also pointed to her youth-leadership work and no reported criminal history.

Bondonga remained detained in Indiana as her lawyers pursued both the federal case and the bond fight. The government’s response to the petition was due seven days after the August 21 order, while the delayed hearing and custody proceedings continued.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.