400+ Seek Self-Deportation in San Francisco as $1,000 Cash Payments Fall Short

(SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) – More than 400 people in San Francisco have inquired about self-deportation options through local resources as ICE enforcement has intensified and legal choices have narrowed.

Those inquiries center on self-deportation, also called voluntary departure, through the CBP Home app. The Trump administration offers incentives that include $1,000 cash payments and free flights to encourage some migrants to leave on their own.

A related Department of Homeland Security proposal adds a $3,000 “holiday stipend“. A San Francisco immigration advocate has criticized that proposal as insufficient and risky.

Local groups are fielding the questions while trying to slow down decisions that can carry long-term legal costs. Many people asking about self-deportation do not have straightforward alternatives, but lawyers say leaving without a full review can trigger penalties that last years.

California deportations rose sharply during the same period. ICE deported at least 8,200 people from the state between January and September 2025, up from about 4,000 in all of 2024.

The increase was steepest in the summer months, according to data from the Deportation Data Project led by a Berkeley Law School professor. That surge coincided with expanded ICE surveillance directives and the end of temporary protections for certain nationalities.

San Francisco residents have also seen enforcement closer to ordinary travel. TSA has been alerting ICE to people under deportation orders at San Francisco International Airport, and one of the best-known local cases involved Angelina Lopez-Jimenez, who was arrested before a flight to Miami.

The pressure has reached legal service networks across the city. The San Francisco Immigration Legal Defense Collaborative, known as SFILDC, has been connecting people facing deportation to free or low-cost consultations with local organizations.

That work has turned SFILDC into a first stop for residents trying to sort out whether self-deportation is a real option or a costly mistake. Lawyers and advocates say the answer often depends on facts that are not obvious to the person considering departure.

One of the largest risks is the re-entry bar that can attach once someone leaves the United States. Those bars can run from 3 to 10 years, or become permanent.

Waivers exist in some cases, but they are not simple. They require complex petitions tied to U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family relationships.

That is one reason attorneys urge caution around offers tied to self-deportation incentives. A flight home and a cash payment can look immediate; the immigration consequences can outlast both.

The administration’s public pitch relies on those incentives. The CBP Home app includes free flights and the $1,000 cash payments, and the effort has targeted nationalities that include Afghanistan and Cameroon.

Supporters of voluntary departure programs present them as a faster, cheaper way to leave than formal removal. San Francisco lawyers working with people at risk of deportation describe a more uneven picture, especially for those with possible relief claims or family ties in the United States.

Some migrants may have asylum-related arguments, but those claims are narrow and fact-specific. Relief under the Convention Against Torture remains possible in some cases, though lawyers describe that path as hard to prove and easy to mishandle.

Mariam Masumi Daud, an immigration lawyer with Johnson & Masumi, PC, said those claims are “very complicated.” She has also warned that self-deportation through the app can bring “irreversible consequences” if people leave before reviewing all options.

That warning has become more urgent as fear rises around arrests and airport screening. A person who assumes self-deportation is the safest route may still face a long ban on return, even if the departure happens without a formal arrest at the airport.

Lawyers also point to confusion around prosecutorial discretion. A request for prosecutorial discretion can pause a case, but it does not change immigration status.

Advocates say that distinction matters because some people wrongly believe a pause amounts to legal protection. It does not, and they warn that seeking prosecutorial discretion should not involve turning oneself in.

The San Francisco cases reflect a larger shift in how enforcement reaches daily life. Once deportation data doubled statewide and high-profile arrests became more visible, more residents began asking not how to stay, but how to leave with the least damage.

Even that question often has no clean answer. Someone leaving under a voluntary departure path may avoid one set of enforcement steps while triggering another set of consequences tied to unlawful presence or past orders.

San Francisco service groups are trying to intercept those decisions before they become final. SFILDC facilitates referrals to organizations that offer free or low-cost legal help, giving residents a way to review possible defenses before using the self-deportation system.

Those organizations include African Advocacy Network and Pangea Legal Services. They also include Catholic Charities CYO at 650.295.2160 and the USF Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic at 415.422.4475.

That referral network matters because the people making inquiries are not all in the same legal position. Some may face old removal orders. Others may have family-based options, potential protection claims, or barriers that make departure especially risky.

City residents from countries affected by changing federal protections face some of the hardest choices. The end of temporary protections for certain nationalities has narrowed time and raised the odds that people will consider self-deportation before speaking with counsel.

The administration’s incentives, including the $1,000 cash payments, are designed to make that choice feel manageable. Critics say the money is small next to the cost of leaving jobs, housing, school, and any future chance of lawful return.

The separate $3,000 “holiday stipend” proposal has drawn even sharper pushback in San Francisco legal circles. Advocates argue that a short-term payment can mask lasting penalties, especially when a departure triggers a bar that a person cannot easily waive.

Families confronting those decisions often do so under pressure and with little time. High-profile airport arrests and wider enforcement reports can push people toward immediate action before they understand whether another legal path exists.

Attorneys handling these inquiries say the first question is rarely about the app itself. It is about what happens after departure, whether a person can ever come back, and whether leaving ends a case or closes off relief forever.

In many cases, the legal review turns on details that are easy to miss outside a formal consultation. A prior order, the length of unlawful presence, family status, and the possibility of a torture-based claim can all change the calculus.

That is why local referral networks have become a central part of the response in San Francisco. SFILDC is not offering a blanket answer to self-deportation requests; it is directing people to groups that can assess the legal and practical costs one case at a time.

The questions keep coming as enforcement remains high and fear spreads through immigrant communities. What many callers are hearing, however, is that self-deportation is not simply a flight, a form, and a check.

It can be a one-way decision with lasting effects. Daud’s warning about “irreversible consequences” captures the gap between the administration’s pitch and the legal reality facing many of the more than 400 people in San Francisco who have already asked how to leave.