ICE Says Charges Are Pending: Assemble the Criminal-Disposition Record

If an immigration custody record says criminal charges are pending but the prosecutor declined to file them, assemble the documents that establish the actual disposition. An arrest, a filed charge, a conviction and an admission are different events. A custody challenge can lose focus when those terms are used interchangeably.

The immediate task is factual: Identify what ICE relied on, what the criminal authorities actually did and what evidence supports the correction. The legal effect still depends on the asserted detention provision, the person’s immigration circumstances and the governing law.

Start with the government’s stated custody basis

Obtain the available custody notice and the relevant immigration record, including the I-213 if available through counsel or an appropriate procedure. Identify the offense named, the date and the description of its status. An entry written on the day of an arrest may not reflect a later declination or dismissal.

Do not assume that disproving one sentence resolves every custody ground. The government may invoke a separate statutory provision or rely on additional facts. A useful review lists each stated basis and the record supporting or disputing it. The objective is an accurate account, not simply a favorable label.

Distinguish no filing, dismissal and acquittal

Preserve booking and release records, the criminal docket if one exists, charging papers, dismissal orders and any reliable prosecutor communication. A docket search returning no case is relevant but may not prove what happened in another jurisdiction or under a different identifier. Record the search scope and seek confirmation where appropriate.

In Duran Martinez v. Mullin, No. 5:26-cv-03805-BFM (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2026), the government relied on an I-213 suggesting grand-theft charges were pending. The petitioner supplied a court-docket search and a legal-team declaration reporting confirmation that the district attorney declined charges. The court credited the no-charge account. Duran Martinez, slip op. at 2 n.1. The strength came from the evidentiary record, not the bare assertion that an arrest had been unfair.

Connect the correction to the particular statute

The Laken Riley Act added a detention provision involving specified immigration and criminal predicates. In the cited case, the district court interpreted the present-tense arrest and charge language in section 1226(c)(1)(E) and concluded that the petitioner’s completed arrest without charges did not require detention under that provision. Duran Martinez, slip op. at 8–12.

That is a particular district court’s statutory analysis. It should not be presented as a nationwide guarantee of release after charges are declined or dismissed. Other clauses, alleged admissions, convictions, different custody authority and controlling subsequent decisions can change the question. Counsel must examine the full statutory criteria and relevant law rather than relying on the shorthand that there is no criminal case.

Document the earlier release and the loss of liberty

If the person previously lived in the community under release conditions, preserve that release order and evidence of compliance. Identify any notice, hearing or explanation before re-detention. In Duran Martinez, years of conditional liberty and the absence of process were central to the due-process holding; the absence of charges did not operate as an isolated release formula.

For example, check-in records can address compliance, while a prosecutor letter addresses criminal disposition. Neither substitutes for the other. Keep family and employment evidence relevant to the custody issue, avoiding unnecessary sensitive material. The record should show both the factual correction and why the challenged procedure mattered.

Request relief that follows from the supported claim

The court in Duran Martinez ordered release on the previously imposed conditions after finding a procedural due-process violation. It declined to prescribe the detailed future injunction requested and denied the remaining claims as moot. Its result therefore should not be described as an adjudication of every ICWC or humanitarian-relief theory in the petition.

Mishra X’s case analysis of the arrest record and re-detention ruling explains those limits. A well-organized disposition packet helps counsel identify the actual error, evaluate the custody basis and choose a supportable remedy.

Next steps for families correcting the arrest chronology

1. Preserve the custody record describing pending charges and the prosecutor or court records showing the actual disposition. In a Southern California matter, identify the county and case-search scope so that a Los Angeles search is not mistaken for a statewide clearance.
2. Keep the earlier immigration release conditions with compliance records, appointment notices and any explanation supplied before re-detention. These materials address the liberty and process history, which a criminal disposition alone does not establish.
3. Have counsel compare each asserted custody ground with the verified facts. Identify unresolved admissions, other charges or separate orders rather than presenting a no-charge letter as a universal release entitlement.

Questions about this issue

Is an arrest the same as a filed charge?

No. Preserve the records establishing each event and the disposition rather than using the terms interchangeably.

Does no court search result prove charges were declined?

Not necessarily. Record the search scope and seek reliable prosecutor or court confirmation where appropriate.

Does correcting the arrest record guarantee release?

No. The correction must be evaluated against all asserted custody grounds and the applicable law and procedure.

Read the primary source: Duran Martinez v. Mullin — filed order PDF.