Armelle Bondonga, a Louisville mother, was released by a federal judge on October 6, after being detained by ICE for nearly 8 weeks.
By noon, a federal judge released her from the Clark County Jail in Jeffersonville, Indiana. That evening, she celebrated her release with her family and the community at Bates Memorial Baptist Church in Louisville.
For weeks, the community rallied for her release, but nothing worked. Finally, the courts ruled in her favor, and the government released her.
Bondonga returned home to her family; however, the immigration case was not closed.
How a green card interview became an arrest
Bondonga came to the United States from the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2013 at the age of 14. She legally entered the United States on a tourist visa, but overstayed and became undocumented after the visa expired in 2014.
She moved to Kentucky, got married, and had a child in Louisville.
On August 12, Bondonga and her husband went to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) appointment to finalize her green card application.
While they were there, ICE agents arrested Bondonga at the USCIS office.
Bondonga was taken into custody and detained at the Clark County Jail for 56 days.
Why the government said it could hold her
Bondonga’s immigration history went beyond her green card application.
In November 2025, an immigration judge ordered her removed from the U.S. Bondonga appealed, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her appeal on April 30, 2026.
During this time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued Bondonga overstayed her visa, and, therefore, her presence in the U.S. was unlawful. Furthermore, DHS argued she had exhausted all legal avenues and was therefore due process bound.
The federal government had a removal order, and Bondonga’s custody was legal while DHS processed her removal.
However, her lawsuit focused on the distinction between legal and illegal custody and detention.
Her lawyers asked a federal judge to intervene
Bondonga’s attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on August 18. Alsalman filed the petition.
Habeas corpus allows a person to challenge their detention by a government agency.
It checks government imprisonment and unlawful restraint of liberty, and it applies to immigration detention and other custodial situations.
While Bondonga’s attorneys filed a petition in immigration court to challenge her detention, an immigration judge did not rule on Bondonga’s eligibility for release on a bond at an August 31 bond hearing.
The immigration judge ruled that because Bondonga’s removal order was administratively final, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) controlled her custody.
As a result, the immigration judge did not rule on Bondonga’s release.
Consequently, Bondonga’s attorneys could challenge her continued detention only in federal court. Bondonga’s attorneys filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana seeking to challenge Bondonga’s continued detention. The federal court petition did not challenge Bondonga’s right to legal permanent resident status (LPR). Instead, it focused on whether the government was legally permitting Bondonga to remain detained.
The government had to justify keeping her detained
Generally, federal immigration law provides an initial 90-day period to carry out a final removal order.
That period had already lapsed in Bondonga’s case.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that immigration detention cannot continue indefinitely when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. Continued custody must be lawfully justified.
Bondonga’s lawyers stated that no evidence suggested Bondonga’s deportation was likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.
There was no removal date.
There were no travel documents.
The court record did not show that federal officials had contacted the Democratic Republic of the Congo to set up Bondonga’s return or even asked the country to take her back.
Bondonga also had other pending legal actions to try to reopen her immigration case.
The absence of these circumstances does not necessarily mean that a removal order is valid.
But they raised a serious question: why was she still being held? Judge Pratt looked at the case and said the Government had not answered that question.
The judge wrote that Federal agents had not given her any evidence or made any arguments to show that Bondonga was likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
In explaining the ruling, Pratt stated:
“The government has not held up its end of the standard.”
On October 6, 2021, Judge Pratt ordered Bondonga released because Pratt determined that the petition for the writ of habeas corpus was appropriate.
This was not just a lawsuit being filed or a judge expressing concern. A federal court determined that the government had not established an adequate legal basis to justify Bondonga’s continued detention.
And the order was executed.
What the community accomplished
Bondonga’s case also drew support in Louisville.
Hundreds of people also rallied behind her. More than 1,300 people signed an open letter also calling for her release.
Bondonga also received support from Louisville lawyers, including Sadiqa Reynolds and Nima Kulkarni.
As an immigrant attorney and a state legislator, Kulkarni also advocated for Bondonga. As a state legislator, Kulkarni could not order federal immigration officers to release Bondonga. Nor could the people who signed letters or rallied behind Bondonga.
The court had that authority.
Through their legal challenge, Bondonga’s lawyers also asked the court to issue an order setting Bondonga free. While Bondonga’s legal challenge was pending, the community provided a rallying point and support.
It is also not clear that public pressure caused the judge to rule in Bondonga’s favor.
Public pressure likely helped keep Bondonga’s case in the courts and made the legal challenge possible. Ultimately, Bondonga had legal representation, and her challenge to her detention and release was successful.
Freedom does not settle her immigration status
Bondonga’s release is certainly a victory, but it doesn’t fully resolve her immigration case.
Judge Pratt did not grant her legal permanent residence. Her removal order still stands. The ruling does not address whether she is legally permitted to remain in the United States.
Until her removal order is expunged, or she receives a formal judgment declaring that she is legally permitted to remain in the country, her efforts to reopen her removal case and to secure legal permanent residence remain pertinent.
The government has the power to enforce the law in this area, and Judge Pratt correctly decided that continued detention was unjustified.
However, other Kentucky families with similar concerns must understand that having a removal order does not mean they have no opportunity to petition the court to review their case.
An attorney can evaluate whether the person is eligible to challenge their removal order, or the detention that led to their removal, through a bond proceeding, habeas corpus, or other available legal process.
The best option for Kentuckians who want to help is probably the New Americans Initiative, which has a detention-defense fund and allows legal professionals and other volunteers to help immigrant families in other ways and expand access to legal representation. Their work is important because it helps people access a lawyer and the legal process. However, it cannot always give the best outcomes in court.
Bondonga’s case illustrates the importance of representation.
She was arrested after attending a government appointment to help her acquire permanent resident status. Bondonga’s lawyers argued that she should not be held while she awaits permanent resident status, since the court did not issue an order denying her that status. The court also did not hear her case on whether she should be permitted to stay in the U.S. The judge ruled that the government lacked the basis to hold Bondonga, and after that ruling, she was allowed to return home to her husband and children.
Bondonga is home. Whether she can stay is the next question her immigration case must answer.
Sources
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Bondonga v. Olson, No. 4:26-cv-00210, habeas petition filed August 18, 2026; release order entered October 6, 2026. Federal case docket.
Louisville Public Media, Aprile Rickert, October 6, 2026. Judge grants release for Louisville woman detained by ICE.
Spectrum News 1, Eran Hami, October 7, 2026. Federal judge orders release of Louisville woman held by ICE.
Louisville Courier Journal, Ruby Grisin, October 6, 2026. Armelle Bondonga released from ICE detention.
Louisville Public Media, Amina Elahi and Aprile Rickert, September 1, 2026. Bond denied as immigration judge claims no jurisdiction.
U.S. Supreme Court, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Opinion and legal standard governing post-removal detention.
New Americans Initiative, Kentucky. Legal-support programs and community resources and Detention Defense Fund.