A federal judge in Iowa has ordered immigration authorities to provide a bond hearing for a Venezuelan man who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after living in the country under federal supervision for roughly four years.

Chief U.S. District Judge Stephanie M. Rose granted part of a habeas corpus petition filed by Osmar Jose Arraiz Montilla and directed the federal government to arrange a hearing before the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Under the order, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Montilla’s continued detention is justified because he is dangerous or likely to flee.

Rose did not order Montilla’s immediate release. Instead, she concluded that the constitutional problem was the government’s decision to re-detain him without first providing an individualized process to determine whether confinement remained necessary. The bond hearing is separate from Montilla’s removal and asylum proceedings and will not determine whether he may remain permanently in the United States.

The order was issued July 9 and required the hearing within seven days, placing the deadline on July 16. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, where Montilla was being held after ICE transferred him from the Linn County Jail to the Muscatine County Jail.

Court records say Montilla entered the United States without authorization on March 22, 2022, and was initially taken into federal custody. Four days later, the Department of Homeland Security released him on his own recognizance after determining that he was not a threat to national security or public safety.

His release included several conditions. Montilla was required to participate in the federal Alternatives to Detention program, report to an assigned officer, attend required hearings and interviews, and obtain written permission before changing his residence. The federal government granted him authorization to work in October 2023.

On May 1, 2026, Montilla voluntarily appeared at an ICE office in Cedar Rapids without having been ordered to report there, according to the court record. ICE officers detained him and alleged that he had violated the terms of his release by moving from Florida to Iowa without permission. Federal officials also cited his Florida address and driver’s license in arguing that he lacked sufficient Iowa ties and presented a flight risk.

Montilla was taken to the Linn County Jail, where he applied for asylum and filed a federal petition challenging his detention. His original case was filed June 15 in the Northern District of Iowa. The court conducted an initial review, issued summonses and directed federal respondents to answer.

Six days after those procedural steps, ICE transferred Montilla to the Muscatine County Jail, which is located in the Southern District of Iowa. Montilla then voluntarily dismissed the Northern District action and filed a new habeas petition in the Southern District because of concerns about which court retained jurisdiction after the transfer.

Rose expressed concern about ICE’s explanation that the agency did not know the Northern District case was pending when it moved Montilla. Although she said she had no concerns about the honesty or integrity of the government attorneys handling the litigation, she described the communication failure within the federal system as troubling.

The judge noted that transfers during pending habeas litigation can complicate judicial review and potentially allow the government to move detainees between districts in search of a more favorable court or to delay a ruling on whether detention is lawful. In an earlier order involving Montilla, Rose warned that noncitizens should not be shifted between jurisdictions as a litigation tactic.

The central legal question was whether the government could detain Montilla without a bond hearing after previously releasing him and allowing him to remain at liberty for years. Federal officials argued that detention without bond was legally permissible under the immigration statutes and relied on an earlier Southern District of Iowa ruling involving a person who had not previously been released.

Rose distinguished that case from Montilla’s circumstances. She concluded that when the government releases a noncitizen into the country and permits that person to live freely for an extended period, the government creates a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

That finding did not mean ICE lacked authority to detain Montilla. Rose acknowledged that the government had identified a possible violation of his release conditions and could present evidence that circumstances had changed. She ruled, however, that those allegations should be examined through an individualized hearing rather than accepted as an automatic basis for indefinite confinement.

The court also addressed ICE’s flight-risk assessment. Rose said Montilla’s Florida documents and relocation could be considered by an immigration judge. At the same time, she pointed to the tension between characterizing Montilla as a flight risk and the fact that he voluntarily appeared at the Cedar Rapids ICE office without being summoned.

At the ordered hearing, the government carries the burden of proof. That allocation differs from some ordinary immigration bond proceedings, in which detainees may be expected to demonstrate that they are not dangerous and will appear for future court dates. Rose said placing the burden on the government was appropriate because federal authorities were seeking to revoke liberty they had previously granted.

Immigration bond proceedings are handled separately from the main removal case. An immigration judge generally considers whether a person is eligible for release, whether the person presents a danger to people or property, whether the person is likely to attend future proceedings and whether national-security concerns are present. A bond decision may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Even if Montilla is granted release, his immigration case would continue. He would still be required to comply with any conditions imposed by the immigration court or DHS, appear for scheduled proceedings and pursue his asylum application or other available defenses against removal.

The ruling is one of several recent Iowa federal cases examining ICE detention practices, access to bond hearings and the movement of detainees between county jails. Iowa does not operate a large dedicated federal immigration detention center, but ICE has used local jails to hold people facing civil immigration proceedings.

The decision is narrowly focused on re-detention after an extended period of supervised release. It does not establish that every person taken into immigration custody is constitutionally entitled to bond, and Rose specifically distinguished Montilla’s situation from cases involving individuals who had remained continuously detained after entering the country.

The broader importance of the ruling lies in its requirement that the government provide individualized justification before taking away a previously granted form of liberty. For Montilla, the next legal step is the bond hearing, where an immigration judge must evaluate the government’s evidence and decide whether detention should continue, whether bond should be set or whether other release conditions would be sufficient.