Irish Green Card Holder Faces Deportation Over $25 Check After Decades

(CHICAGO/O’HARE, CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY) Donna Hughes-Brown, a 58-year-old Irish grandmother and lawful permanent resident, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Chicago O’Hare International Airport on July 29, 2025 after returning from a family funeral in Ireland. She has now spent more than a month in custody in Campbell County, Kentucky while the government seeks her deportation over a 2015 misdemeanor for a $25 bad check—a decade-old offense for which she paid restitution and finished probation.

Federal authorities have labeled the misdemeanor a “crime of moral turpitude” (CIMT), a classification in immigration law that can trigger removal proceedings for green card holders re-entering the United States, regardless of how minor the underlying conduct may seem or how long ago it occurred. The classification has put Hughes-Brown—who has lived in the U.S. since age 11 and has nearly five decades of residence—into mandatory detention and removal proceedings after a routine return from abroad.

Case background and family impact

Her case—rooted in a $25 bad check written in 2015—has raised alarm among long-term residents with minor records, families with mixed immigration status, and immigration attorneys who warn that routine international trips can carry major risks.

• Relatives say Hughes-Brown has lived in the U.S. for nearly 50 years, is married to a U.S. citizen, and has five grandchildren.
• The misdemeanor was resolved in criminal court: restitution paid and probation completed.
• At the port of entry, the conviction was flagged and recharacterized as a CIMT, converting a family trip into a legal crisis.

Supporters report that her detention has stretched past 30 days, with alleged “deplorable” conditions, including a period of isolation after she complained that the food did not meet her medical needs.

“Deportation over a $25 bad check is wildly disproportionate,” say supporters, pointing to her long residence, strong family ties, and completion of the criminal sentence.

Federal enforcement posture and recent policy changes

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE emphasize that green card status is a privilege, not a right, and that certain criminal convictions—especially those deemed CIMTs—can lead to removal even when the person has spent decades in the U.S. That view aligns with recent enforcement and legislative changes:

• The administration under President Trump’s second term has widened the scope and speed of removals, and expanded detention capacity.
• The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), signed July 4, 2025, authorized significant detention expansion and other enforcement resources.
• New registration rules, effective April 11, 2025, require immigrants (including lawful permanent residents) to register with the federal government to help identify people who may be removable.

Legal advocates warn these steps have predictable consequences: more long-term residents being detained and pushed through fast-tracked cases with limited relief options.

Enforcement resources and procedural shifts

The enforcement push is supported by fresh resources and procedural changes that affect detention and adjudication:

• OBBBA law reportedly dedicated $45 billion to expand detention, family detention, and allow longer custody for children and parents.
• ICE’s annual detention budget was quadrupled, enabling facility expansion and greater capacity.
• The Pentagon assigned 600 military attorneys as temporary immigration judges to reduce backlogs and speed adjudications—an action that has raised due process and expertise concerns among immigration attorneys.

These changes increase coordination with local law enforcement and make it easier to detain arriving residents when a record is flagged, even if the triggering offense is minor and old.

The legal issue: “crime of moral turpitude”

What troubles attorneys most is the breadth and vagueness of the CIMT label:

• CIMT is not clearly defined in statute and has been interpreted through case law and agency guidance.
• It can apply to a range of offenses—theft, forgery, certain fraud-related misdemeanors—often hinging on intent to deceive or moral blameworthiness.
• In practice, a single misdemeanor that state courts treated as minor can be recharacterized by immigration authorities as a CIMT, triggering inadmissibility and mandatory detention upon reentry.

That mismatch explains how a $25 bad check can become a legal “trap door” for a grandmother who otherwise led an orderly life and complied with criminal penalties.

For an overview of how CIMTs affect admissibility and relief options, the government’s framework is described in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 8, Part F, Chapter 2.

Impact on travel and ports of entry

For green card holders who travel abroad, the risk calculus has changed:

• Port-of-entry officers increasingly screen returning residents for old convictions.
• If an offense is categorized as a CIMT, the individual can be placed into mandatory detention and compelled to fight removal from custody.
• Even short trips—such as travel for a funeral—do not shield returning residents from inadmissibility screening.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests recent enforcement steps have broadened exposure for lawful permanent residents with past misdemeanors, especially where administrative guidance emphasizes broad categories over individualized discretion.

Speed of proceedings and access to counsel

Families describe a system that often moves faster than they can prepare a defense:

1. Detention begins immediately at the airport.
2. Transfers to remote facilities complicate access to counsel.
3. Calendars can be set quickly, especially with temporary judges added.
4. Relief programs and discretionary options have narrowed since 2024, making favorable outcomes harder to obtain.

Advocates fear that quick calendars, complex legal standards, and custody constraints may tilt outcomes toward removal—particularly when detained respondents lack medical care, translation, or legal representation.

Detention conditions and family strain

Reports from families and advocacy groups highlight troubling detention conditions:

• Limited access to fresh food and inconsistent medical care.
• Frequent use of segregation or “medical isolation” after detainees complain.
• Stress on families who juggle jobs, childcare, and legal logistics while paying mounting legal fees.

Hughes-Brown’s relatives say she was placed in isolation after raising concerns about food not meeting her medical needs. Her husband, Jim Brown, has contacted elected officials; the family reports limited state-level options because the matter is federal.

A GoFundMe launched for legal expenses has reached about 86% of a $6,500 goal, reflecting the scramble to secure counsel as time runs and detention conditions take a toll.

Policy context and legal stakes (summary)

Several recent shifts shape the current deportation climate:

• Registration rules effective April 11, 2025 draw more individuals into federal visibility.
• OBBBA’s funding and mandates expand detention and enforcement capacity ($45 billion cited for detention expansion).
• Deployment of 600 military attorneys as temporary immigration judges aims to speed cases but raises concerns about fairness and expertise.
• Discretionary relief and other programs have been curtailed since 2024, narrowing paths for long-term residents with minor offenses.

Within this framework, a CIMT designation remains the central legal trigger for removal upon reentry—even for a misdemeanor resolved years earlier.

Practical steps and recommendations for families

Advocates and attorneys emphasize concrete steps families should take:

• If you are a lawful permanent resident with any past conviction, consult a qualified immigration attorney to assess whether the offense could be treated as a CIMT.
• If travel is essential, consult counsel before leaving and carry certified court documents showing case disposition, proof of restitution, and completion of probation or diversion.
• If a family member is detained:
  • Call counsel immediately.
  • Gather and preserve criminal court records, proof of restitution, medical records, marriage and birth certificates, and evidence of community ties.
  • Track detention location changes promptly, as they affect access to court and representation.
• Monitor public resources and nonprofit hotlines for updates about registration requirements and court procedures.

Key practical reminders:

• Dismissals and expungements in state court can still be complex in immigration court.
• Bond might be sought where allowed, but many CIMT cases face mandatory detention.
• Experienced counsel can examine whether the conviction qualifies as a CIMT and whether any exceptions or procedural defenses apply.

Broader implications and public response

Public concern is growing as cases like Hughes-Brown’s gain visibility:

• Recent polls indicate a majority of Americans view the enforcement approach as too harsh, worrying about detention conditions and due process limits.
• Families report parents detained over low-level convictions resolved years earlier, leading to missed family events and educational disruptions for children.
• Critics argue that the CIMT standard is too vague and can produce extreme results for minor offenses.

Officials counter that statutes and congressional direction permit removal for certain convictions, and that enforcing those laws is consistent with national policy goals. They stress that compliance with criminal sentences does not erase immigration consequences under federal law.

Legal challenges to aspects of expanded detention and expedited removals are expected to continue, but under current law and funding, enforcement priorities remain firm.

Current status and next steps for Hughes-Brown

For the Hughes-Brown family, the immediate legal strategy likely includes:

• Challenging whether the 2015 bad-check conviction legally qualifies as a CIMT under federal standards.
• Seeking procedural vulnerabilities in how the case was initiated at O’Hare.
• Highlighting decades-long residence, marriage to a U.S. citizen, and hardship to grandchildren as equities—though equities alone rarely overcome statutory inadmissibility.

The human cost is immediate: a grandmother with nearly 50 years in America sits in a Kentucky detention center while lawyers contest removal based on a $25 bad check.

Final takeaways and guidance

• The disconnect between state court resolutions and immigration classifications means time does not necessarily erase immigration consequences.
• Families should prepare in advance: keep certified criminal records, proof of restitution, medical documentation, and family relationship evidence.
• Seek legal help early and avoid international travel if there is uncertainty about criminal history.

The legal label “crime of moral turpitude” may sound abstract, but it can decide whether a person stays with their family or is removed from the only home they have known for decades.

Hughes-Brown’s case serves as a cautionary tale for millions of green card holders: a single misdemeanor resolved years ago can resurface at the border with life-altering consequences. Supporters hope discretion or legal argument will prevail. Critics call for reform to prevent minor, long-ago offenses from triggering deportation for long-settled residents.

For families facing similar situations, the consistent advice from nonprofit organizations and attorneys is to stay informed, gather documentation, and secure experienced legal representation as soon as possible.