- Sen. Alex Padilla visited SFO after complaints about detainees’ access to lawyers, medical care, and beds.
- Reports say at least 25 people were held at SFO beyond CBP’s stated seventy-two-hour limit from January through July twenty twenty-six.
- The reported holds raise oversight and legal questions, but do not establish violations of law.
Sen. Alex Padilla made an unannounced visit to the San Francisco International Airport holding facility in early October 2026 after receiving complaints about detainees’ access to lawyers, medical care and beds. Padilla is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Immigration Subcommittee.
Reports describe CBP holding some travelers, including lawful permanent residents, at the airport beyond the agency’s stated 72-hour limit. The facility has been characterized in those accounts as a de facto immigration detention center. The allegations have not been adjudicated.
Fewer than 10 people were reportedly at the facility during Padilla’s visit. He said he did not know why they were being held or how long they had been there.
Padilla questioned whether detainees had adequate ways to contact family and lawyers. He also said the facility should not operate as a formal ICE detention site. Complaints prompted the visit.
Airport and national figures count long holds, not legal findings
Reported figures cover January through July 2026. The national total includes people held at international airports, not just SFO.
The figures count reported stays and transfers. They do not establish how many of the 146 lawful permanent residents were held at SFO, or whether any individual case violated the law.
| Location | Reported holds beyond 72 hours | Reported transfer or population detail |
|---|---|---|
| SFO | At least 25 people | 19 transferred to ICE custody |
| International airports nationwide | More than 400 people | 146 lawful permanent residents |
Record checks can keep travelers at the airport instead of returning later
Deferred inspection can give a traveler a later appointment to resolve questions about admissibility. The reported SFO practice instead involved keeping some people at the airport while CBP sought records or considered a transfer to ICE detention.
Attorneys and relatives said some detainees could not communicate meaningfully with counsel while officers waited for older criminal or immigration records. Those delays could run through weekends.
Detainees reportedly had supervised telephone calls limited to five minutes. They slept in chairs beneath lights that remained on continuously, and airport vendors supplied their food. Complaints also cited limited access to beds and medical care.
CBP defends the accommodations while SFO says federal officers control detention
CBP said the airport facilities provide appropriate accommodations and medical services when necessary. The agency said the length of processing depends on each traveler’s circumstances.
Doug Yakel, SFO’s public-information officer, said federal agencies have broad authority over customs, immigration and security operations at the airport. SFO does not decide who enters the country or who is detained, he said, and cannot bar CBP from using a federally controlled facility.
The dispute involves more than the length of processing. It also concerns whether people held during record checks can reach attorneys and relatives.
The reported holds raise questions but do not establish a legal violation
The allegations touch on 8 C.F.R. § 292.5, which addresses representation and communication in immigration proceedings, and 8 C.F.R. § 235.3, which governs inspection and expedited-removal processing. They also raise questions about constitutional due-process protections for noncitizens physically present in the United States.
CBP’s stated 72-hour standard is another point of reference. The reported duration figures document allegations of longer stays, but do not by themselves establish that the agency violated a statute or the Constitution. The SFO practices remain allegations and oversight concerns, not adjudicated findings.
A person’s detention at SFO alone does not establish inadmissibility or removability. Lawful permanent residents generally may contest claims that they abandoned their residence or became inadmissible. Certain criminal convictions, prior removal orders, fraud findings or national-security grounds may create serious statutory bars under INA §§ 212 and 237.
People in removal proceedings generally do not receive government-appointed counsel. They may seek representation at no expense to the government and request access to an attorney. Depending on the case, a person may challenge prolonged custody through a bond request or habeas corpus petition, or contest inadmissibility or removability before an immigration judge where jurisdiction exists.
An eight-day airport hold preceded about five months in custody
A 67-year-old man was held at SFO for eight days in March before being transferred to the California City detention facility. He later faced delays obtaining legal representation and resolving an old misdemeanor matter.
He was released after approximately five months in custody. The case illustrates how an airport hold can precede a much longer detention elsewhere.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
