(CENTRAL ISLIP, NEW YORK) — Emergency release from ICE custody—through immigration bond and related court motions—has become the immediate defense focus after a federal judge described a Central Islip courthouse “hold room” for immigration detainees as “putrid and cramped,” raising urgent questions about prolonged confinement in temporary spaces.
In a 24-page memorandum and order in Clarke v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-06773, E.D.N.Y.), U.S. District Judge Gary R. Brown criticized conditions in a roughly 10′ x 8′ courthouse holding cell that reportedly housed up to nine men for multiple days. The order also points to a June 24, 2025 ICE “waiver memo” that extended typical short-term holding parameters from 12 hours to 72 hours.
ICE, responding to public attention, stated on Dec. 29–30 that the Central Islip field office is a processing facility, not a detention facility, and that detainees are “quickly processed and transferred.” ICE also disputed allegations of sub-freezing temperatures and warned that public rhetoric has contributed to threats and assaults against officers.
Against that backdrop, defense counsel are likely to treat swift custody litigation as a parallel track to the immigration merits case. In practice, that usually means:
- seeking release on bond in Immigration Court,
- requesting alternative custody conditions, and
- where appropriate, pursuing federal-court habeas relief to challenge unlawful or prolonged detention.
1) The relief option: Immigration bond and custody redetermination
For many noncitizens arrested by ICE in the New York area, the first realistic “defense strategy” is not a merits hearing. It is getting out of custody to fight the case from home. The principal mechanism is an Immigration Judge (IJ) bond redetermination hearing under DHS detention authority.
Core legal framework (general overview)
ICE most often asserts detention under one of two INA provisions:
- INA § 236(a) (discretionary detention): Many people may request bond. The IJ can set a bond amount or order release on conditions.
- INA § 236(c) (mandatory detention): Certain criminal- or terrorism-related grounds can block IJ bond authority, though litigation sometimes disputes whether § 236(c) applies.
A custody fight can also intersect with INA § 241(a) if a final removal order exists. Post-order detention has different rules and timelines.
Because detention statutes are technical and fact-driven, counsel typically builds the bond request while also challenging the detention classification itself.
Warning (detention classification): If ICE claims INA § 236(c) mandatory detention, the court’s bond authority may be limited. A lawyer can assess whether ICE’s classification is legally correct.
2) Eligibility requirements for bond (what the IJ applies)
In a standard bond redetermination under INA § 236(a), the IJ generally considers whether the person is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The burden of proof can vary by posture and jurisdiction. Courts have issued differing approaches over time, and outcomes can vary by circuit.
In most bond presentations, the defense addresses:
- Identity and stability: fixed address, long-term residence, family ties.
- Immigration history: prior removals, missed hearings, or compliance with supervision.
- Criminal history: arrests, convictions, pending cases, and rehabilitation.
- Equities: employment, caregiving responsibilities, medical conditions.
- Merits posture: whether the person has viable relief (asylum, adjustment, cancellation).
Even when the underlying claim is strong, bond can be denied if the judge believes the person will not appear or poses a safety risk.
3) Evidence that typically supports release
A bond case is won on documents and credible, consistent testimony. In the Central Islip context, defense lawyers may also document the practical impact of confinement in a courthouse hold room, especially when holding extends beyond truly short-term processing.
Common evidence includes:
- Proof of address and household
– Lease, mortgage statement, or notarized letter from the sponsor.
– Utility bills and government-issued IDs.
- Sponsor packet
– Sponsor’s proof of lawful status or citizenship.
– Recent pay stubs, tax transcripts, and employment letter.
– Statement committing to housing and ensuring appearances.
- Community ties
– Letters from clergy, employers, teachers, and community leaders.
– Records of volunteer work or community service.
- Medical and mental health records
– Diagnoses, prescriptions, and clinician letters.
– Documentation of how detention worsens conditions.
- Merits-related filings
– I-130/I-130/I-485 receipts for family petitions (Form I-130).
– Proof of pending applications, prior grants, or prima facie determinations.
- Detention-condition documentation (when relevant)
– Declarations describing confinement conditions and duration.
– Requests for medical attention and responses.
– Logs of transfers and time in the hold room.
Condition evidence alone does not guarantee bond. But it may support expedited consideration and arguments about irreparable harm.
Deadline (paperwork): Bond hearings can be scheduled quickly. Sponsors should gather ID, proof of income, and proof of address immediately to avoid continuances.
4) Factors that strengthen or weaken bond cases
Strengthening factors
- No criminal record or only minor, old convictions with strong rehabilitation evidence.
- Long residence in the U.S. and close U.S. citizen or resident family.
- Prior compliance with court dates and ICE check-ins.
- A clear path to relief, such as adjustment through a U.S. citizen spouse under INA § 245, or a strong asylum claim under INA § 208.
- Credible sponsor with steady employment and a stable home.
Weakening factors
- Prior removal order or evidence of past failures to appear.
- Recent criminal conduct, protective orders, or pending violent charges.
- Inconsistent testimony about address, identity, or immigration history.
- Limited community ties or an unstable housing plan.
In the Central Islip courthouse setting, the government may argue the hold room is a short-term processing space and that transfer delays do not change legal detention authority. Defense counsel, in turn, may argue prolonged holding conditions magnify the urgency of release and can support federal-court review in extreme situations.
5) Disqualifiers and bars to release
Bond is not always available. Common barriers include:
- Mandatory detention claims under INA § 236(c) based on certain convictions.
- Arriving alien posture, where IJ bond authority can be restricted depending on the procedural pathway and custody authority asserted.
- Final orders of removal, where detention shifts to INA § 241 and different remedies apply.
- National security and terrorism-related allegations, which can narrow discretionary release options.
Even when an IJ lacks bond authority, lawyers may still pursue release through parole, orders of supervision, or federal habeas depending on the facts.
Warning (do not self-file blindly): A rushed, inconsistent bond filing can harm credibility. It can also create admissions that affect the merits case.
6) Realistic expectations: what outcomes look like
Bond outcomes vary widely by judge, venue, and the person’s history. In practice:
- Some detainees may be released on bond relatively quickly if they show strong ties and low risk.
- Others may receive high bond amounts that function as de facto detention if the family cannot pay.
- Some will be denied bond and must pursue appeals, renewed motions if circumstances change, or federal litigation in rare cases.
Condition-based arguments, including allegations of prolonged holding in a courthouse hold room, can add urgency. Still, they rarely substitute for the core flight-risk and danger analysis.
7) Parallel strategy: protect the underlying immigration case
A custody battle should not derail the long-term defense. Counsel typically runs both tracks:
- File or update relief applications (asylum, cancellation, adjustment).
- Preserve evidence and request records through FOIA when needed.
- Avoid admissions that could trigger removability or bar relief.
- Coordinate with USCIS when a benefits case is pending, such as an I-130/I-485 pathway. USCIS procedures and timing matter, especially if ICE custody interrupts biometrics or interviews.
Where detention conditions become central, attorneys may also consider whether the facts support federal-court habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. That pathway is complex and jurisdiction-specific and requires careful coordination with the immigration proceedings.
Deadline (court dates): Missing an Immigration Court hearing can result in an in absentia removal order under INA § 240(b)(5). Confirm hearing dates through EOIR processes and counsel.
Why attorney representation is critical in Central Islip custody disputes
In a case touching a federal courthouse hold room, counsel must coordinate across systems: ICE custody decisions, EOIR bond practice, and potentially federal-court litigation. Each forum has different standards, records, and deadlines. A qualified immigration attorney can:
- Identify whether INA § 236(a), § 236(c), or § 241 applies.
- Build a bond packet that anticipates DHS arguments.
- Screen for relief bars and criminal-immigration consequences.
- Litigate emergencies without compromising the merits case.
For official agency information, consult DHS and ICE materials at dhs.gov and ice.gov, and immigration benefits guidance at uscis.gov. Court information is available through the Eastern District of New York at nyed.uscourts.gov.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources
– AILA Lawyer Referral
– Immigration Advocates Network
This report details the urgent shift in immigration defense strategy following a federal judge’s criticism of ‘putrid’ holding conditions in New York. It outlines the legal pathways for seeking release, including bond hearings and habeas corpus, while explaining the evidentiary requirements such as community ties and medical records. It highlights how detention classification affects eligibility and emphasizes the need for parallel litigation to protect underlying immigration claims.
