A federal judge has intervened in the case of an Iowa man jailed by ICE after living in the United States for 10 years since the age of 11. Chief Judge Stephanie Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that while the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that noncitizens who enter the country without authorization and are later arrested are subjected to mandatory detention, that decision does not end the matter where constitutional rights are at play.
What changed
Alvaro Anastacio Garcia Tevalan, a Guatemalan citizen who entered the United States without authorization in November 2016 at age 11, was apprehended by Border Patrol agents, processed as an unaccompanied minor, and placed with the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which released him to his mother’s custody in Clarion, Iowa within a few weeks. Now 20 years old, Tevalan has lived in the United States for almost 10 years and has a child who is a U.S. citizen, and court records indicate he has never violated the terms of his 2016 release.
On April 29, 2026, Tevalan was arrested in Wright County on a domestic-abuse assault charge; an ICE officer then lodged a detainer against him, and ICE took custody of him on May 1, 2026.
Chief Judge Rose ruled that the question before the court was “whether the government may re-detain, without process, a noncitizen it allowed to live at liberty in the country for nearly a decade. It may not,” and concluded that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ mandatory detention holding does not end the matter where constitutional rights are at play, meaning the government, having released Tevalan and allowed him to live at liberty for a decade, cannot now re-detain him without due process.
Why it matters
This decision creates a narrow but important carve-out to the Eighth Circuit’s March 2026 mandatory detention precedent. The Eighth Circuit has authority over Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Under that circuit’s rule, noncitizens who entered without inspection face mandatory detention with no automatic entitlement to bond hearings.
But Judge Rose held that when the government has already released someone into the interior and allowed them to live at liberty for years, re-detaining them later—even after an arrest—raises constitutional due process questions that override the appellate mandatory detention rule. This gives practitioners a fact-specific argument for clients with a history of prior release and long-term residence.
The ruling does not eliminate mandatory detention nationally or in the Eighth Circuit; it carves out a due-process exception for people whose prior release created a reliance interest the government cannot later erase “retroactively” without process.
Way forward
If you represent a detained noncitizen in the Eighth Circuit with a prior release and extended residence history:
- File a motion or habeas petition arguing that constitutional due process constrains re-detention, citing Judge Rose’s ruling.
- Gather evidence of the prior release, length of lawful residence in the community, family ties, and any reliance on that status (employment, home, children in school, etc.).
- Emphasize that mandatory detention applies to those arrested at entry or shortly thereafter, not those allowed to live at liberty for years before a later arrest.
- Request a bond hearing despite the Eighth Circuit’s general mandatory detention rule.
- Note that SCOTUS has not yet ruled on the circuit split, and constitutional due process may narrow the government’s detention authority even where federal statute appears permissive.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Form is a software company, not a law firm. Always consult with a licensed immigration attorney before taking action based on this or any court ruling. Immigration law and policy change frequently and without notice; verify all claims against the primary source and current case law before filing or advising a client. The outcome in one case does not guarantee the same result in yours.