Latest Data on Custody Decisions in New Immigration Court Cases, July 2025

Published Aug 22, 2025

The latest case-by-case Immigration Court records through July 31, 2025, show that stepped up enforcement resulted in the Trump administration referring more noncitizens to Immigration Court each month. In the first full month after Trump assumed office, 22,116 noncitizens were referred to Immigration Court by DHS officers during February. Referrals occur when DHS needs an order by an Immigration Judge before these noncitizens can be legally deported. In July 2025, the Court recorded a total of 33,769 new cases that had arrived—or around 50 percent more.

This report focuses on the cases that just arrived at the Court in July. Because a substantial proportion of “new” cases arise from ICE arrests in the interior of the country, these noncitizens may have been living in the U.S. for years and need not be “new” arrivals.

On cases where the date of entry was recorded, fully 66 percent had been living in the U.S. for 2 years or more, 30 percent had been residing in the U.S. for 5 years or more, and 14 percent had actually resided in the U.S. for 10 years or more.[1]

The Odds A Noncitizen is Detained During Court Proceedings

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials determine whether to keep a noncitizen locked up or to release them while proceedings take place in Immigration Court to determine whether these individuals will be allowed to remain in the United States or ordered removed.

Little is actually known about the factors driving these custody decisions. ICE officers have wide discretion in making this decision and the criteria a given officer applies is rarely disclosed. Observations that have been shared suggest that the decision differs for ostensibly similar noncitizens depending largely on the identity of the particular ICE officer making this decision.

For the individual, the custody decision has major implications for that person’s life. Empirical comparisons of individuals who remain in custody show these individuals generally have a harder time getting the records and help they need to mount a successful challenge to being ordered removed by an Immigration Judge.

This report focuses on the set of new cases that arrived in Immigration Court during July 2025 and key factors widely believed to be related to that decision: what state was the individual arrested in, how long had they resided in the U.S., and their nationality.[2]

Overall, of the 33,769 new Court cases in July 2025, just 30 percent of the individuals were being held in detention by ICE. The remaining 70 percent had been released or never detained. See Figure 1.

What State Were These Noncitizens From?

The address information in Immigration Court records is the latest record of the address where the individual was residing as of July 31, 2025. For those In custody on July 31, the address likely reflected the state where their detention facility was located. Thus, in examining state-by-state information, it is important not to just look at state of residence but also combine this with custody status.

Overall, Texas had the largest number (5,464) of noncitizens with new Court cases that arrived in July, followed by New Jersey with 4,227 cases. However, New Jersey jumps to first place for individuals who were not detained because Texas’s ranking was boosted by the large number of individuals held at detention facilities within Texas.

Table 1 lists the top twenty states with new Court cases that arrived in July. These total counts by state of residence, are then broken down into separate counts for those detained versus not detained. Additional columns record the percentages in each of these top twenty states by custody status. Tennessee and North Carolina are tied with just 1 percent who were detained, with Illinois having just 2 percent and Maryland with just 5 percent in custody.

As shown in Table 1, other states with detention facilities within their states where large numbers of individuals were held included Louisiana, Georgia, and Arizona. These states drop much lower in their state rankings if just individuals not in custody are compared.

Custody Determinations and the Length of Time in the U.S.

The recorded date of the Notice to Appear (NTA) in Immigration Court filled out at the time of arrest was compared with the recorded date of entry to determine how long each person had resided in the U.S. when their arrest occurred. Length of stay in this country did not show any clear pattern to whether the individual was held in custody. See Table 2.

It was the case that individuals who had been in the U.S. for up to one year showed an elevated custody rate (40 percent versus the overall rate of 30 percent). However, those residing for between one and two years had a much-reduced custody rate of only 11 percent. Individuals residing in this country for between 2 and 3 years as well as between 3 and 4 years also had lower than average custody rates.

The highest custody rates of over 50 percent did occur for those residing longest in the U.S. The highest custody rates were for individuals who had already been in the U.S. for at least 15 years. But as shown in Table 2, the pattern was erratic. Custody rates were in fact lower than average for large ranges of lengthy stays. Indeed, the second lowest custody rate of 18 percent occurred for some of the longer periods of time (between 9 and 10 years) individuals had resided in the U.S. before their arrest. See Table 2.

Custody Determinations and Nationality

While average custody rates were 30 percent, the top 20 countries with new Court cases had custody rates that ranged a great deal—from 3 percent for Nigerians to 57 percent for Mexicans.

Mexico had such a large number of cases with more than half who remained detained that it dominated custody patterns. This meant that after Mexico, only a few countries had custody rates above the national average and for these countries, rates were just barely above the national average. After Mexico, Guatemala was next highest with a custody rate of 34 percent followed by El Salvador with 32 percent, and Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic with 31 percent.

At the other extreme, Nigeria had the lowest custody rate of just 3 percent followed by the Philippines with 5 percent. Others with among the lowest custody rates were: Haiti (11%), China (11%), Brazil (12%), Peru (12%), Russia (13%), and Columbia (14%). See Table 3.