- Seven former detainees sued ICE and DHS on October 13, 2026, alleging their belongings remained withheld after release.
- Plaintiffs say missing work and identity documents blocked jobs, housing, and medical care; one alleges losing about five job opportunities.
- The lawsuit seeks property-return procedures and nationwide relief, but the court has not certified a class or ruled on the allegations.
Seven former immigration detainees sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security in Washington on October 13, 2026, alleging the agency kept their documents and personal belongings for months after releasing them. The proposed class action, Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security, says ICE follows a nationwide “de facto policy” of retaining property without a continuing governmental reason.
The complaint names DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and David J. Venturella, identified as a senior ICE official, as defendants alongside the agency. It alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act and ICE’s own property rules.
The plaintiffs want a nationwide class, an order requiring ICE to return property it has no lawful basis to hold, and procedures for handling belongings taken during civil detention. Those requests now go to a federal court, not agency officials.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee.
Missing work papers have blocked jobs and strained household budgets
The plaintiffs come from Russia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Cuba, Colombia and Guatemala. They allege they had been out of ICE custody for at least five months when they filed suit, but still lacked important possessions.
Vladimir Izmailov, a Ukrainian-born Russian citizen seeking asylum, says ICE detained him in November 2025 and released him in April 2026. The agency returned his cellphone, according to the complaint, but allegedly kept his driver’s license, work authorization document, wallet, belt and wedding ring.
Izmailov said the missing property compounded the hardship of detention.
“ICE refusing to return my belongings has made a horrible experience even worse.”
He said he could not find meaningful work without documents showing his authorization to work. He borrowed money for rent and to support his wife and two children.
“Now, I'm struggling to provide for my family because ICE still has my documents that show I am authorized to work.”
Enis Suleima Luna Ardila, a Colombian asylum seeker, says ICE detained her after a scheduled immigration check-in in December 2025 and released her in February 2026. The complaint says the agency did not return her state identification, employment authorization document, Colombian passport, Social Security card or learner’s permit. She allegedly turned down approximately five employment opportunities because she lacked her work papers.
Other property named in the lawsuit includes passports, state identification, phones, cash, car keys, clothing, jewelry and Social Security cards. One plaintiff alleges officers discarded his wallet and belt after his detention in November 2025. The group says missing identification has also affected access to housing and medical care, and left people afraid to leave home without documents.
The complaint says ICE rules limit when officials may keep property
The plaintiffs argue ICE has no continuing basis to hold belongings after a person leaves custody when the property is not evidence and the government has no identified administrative or criminal reason to retain it. The complaint says the agency’s internal Confiscation Directive permits officials to keep documents only when they have a “clearly articulated operational need,” such as suspected fraud or a link to a criminal investigation.
Separate detention rules allegedly require ICE to safeguard other belongings and return them at release unless a legitimate government interest remains. The complaint cites “well over 40” examples of allegedly unjustified retention of government-issued documents and another “well over 40” involving other personal property. Those figures are allegations, not court findings.
The lawsuit claims the alleged practice breaches the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable retention of personal property, federal administrative-law requirements and ICE’s own directives. The plaintiffs also say the agency’s actions caused job loss, financial hardship and barriers to daily needs.
The requested nationwide order would still require court approval
The plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring ICE to return property it has no lawful basis to retain and barring future unjustified withholding. They also want rules governing the inventory, storage, explanation and return of property taken during civil detention.
A proposed class does not become nationwide simply because the complaint asks for one. The court must assess whether the group meets Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class certification. The plaintiffs must also establish the requirements for preliminary or permanent injunctive relief.
Their claims remain at the pleading stage. The court will have to consider whether the named plaintiffs can represent a legally cognizable class and whether the challenged conduct can be attributed to the agencies and officials under the constitutional and administrative-law theories.
Property-return disputes have reached courts in five states
The complaint points to separate proceedings in Minnesota, West Virginia, New York, Texas and Colorado, where federal judges reportedly ordered immigration authorities to return belongings or addressed failures to comply with court orders. In one Colorado dispute, a judge described the alleged refusal to return documents as “unjustifiable intransigence.”
The plaintiffs also cite a 2024 federal appellate ruling in the District of Columbia concerning police retention of seized personal property for an unreasonable period. That decision involved police property practices; the new case raises claims about ICE’s immigration-detention procedures.
Advocates say missing identification carries risks beyond lost wages
The American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, which represents the plaintiffs, argues that withholding work and identity documents blocks employment and creates other practical risks. The organization says federal law requires noncitizens to carry proof of lawful status.
Julia Decker, policy director of the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, said the government’s retention of documents leaves people without papers officials themselves expect them to carry.
“The government not returning these documents to folks is essentially forcing them to walk around without this document that the government itself says these folks are supposed to carry with them.”
Graham Ojala-Barbour, a Minneapolis immigration attorney, described the reported practice in an earlier interview as common.
“It’s more the rule than the exception that people generally are not given their stuff back.”
He also said:
“As far as I can tell, it’s the practice of ICE to throw everybody’s documents into a black box and then lose it.”
The filing comes amid a broader rise in immigration detention. An analysis based on Deportation Data Project information put the number of people detained by ICE since President Trump returned to office at more than 610,000 as of August 2026; approximately 80% were arrested in the U.S. interior.
Separate arrest figures put ICE arrests at 43,000 in June 2026, more than 49,000 in July and nearly 51,000 in August. The figures provide enforcement context, but do not establish that ICE violated the law in this case.
The court has yet to decide whether the plaintiffs may proceed for a nationwide class or whether ICE must change how it handles property. The complaint’s constitutional and administrative-law allegations remain unadjudicated.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
