MUSCATINE, Iowa (Iowa Capital Dispatch) - A judge has ordered the federal government to provide a bond hearing for another individual detained in Iowa jails by immigration authorities.During the past year, the Trump administration has actively pursued a strategy of denying bond hearings for thousands of people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That’s a change from policies and practices dating back to the mid-1990s when undocumented immigrants detained by federal authorities were typically provided a hearing at which they could argue they were entitled to release on bond because they did not pose a flight risk or a threat to the community.In recent months, various courts have upheld the new policy, although federal judges have found that the subset of detainees who were released by ICE years ago, and who then remained free without violating the terms of their release, have a due-process right to a bond hearing after being re-detained by ICE.In the most recent Iowa case of that type, Osmar Jose Arraiz Montilla, a native of Venezuela, has taken Muscatine County Sheriff Quinn Riess, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement David Venturella to court over their refusal to provide him with a bond hearing.Court records show Montilla entered the United States without authorization on March 22, 2022, and was taken into custody by Homeland Security. Four days later, after the department concluded that he was not a threat to national security or public safety, he was released on his own recognizance while removal proceedings were initiated.As part of his release, he was required to participate in the Alternatives to Detention program and report to a parole or probation officer within five business days. He was also required to report for hearings and interviews as directed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and was barred from changing his place of residence without written permission. In October 2023, the federal government granted him work authorization.On May 1, 2026, he voluntarily appeared at an ICE office in Cedar Rapids, without any prior notice, and was immediately detained in the Linn County Jail by ICE officials who alleged he had violated the conditions of his release by moving from Florida to Iowa without permission. He then applied for asylum and filed a court petition seeking his release. While that matter was still pending in Northern District of Iowa courts, ICE moved Montilla from the Linn County Jail to the Muscatine County Jail in the Southern District of Iowa.That move sparked concern on the part of the chief judge of the Southern District, Stephanie M. Rose, who noted that such transfers aren’t typical, since they would enable the government to “transfer noncitizens from district to district in search of a more favorable locale, or to forestall adjudication of the legality of their detention.”At the time, Rose also cited concerns with the government’s “record of defying court orders,” particularly with regard to orders prohibiting the transfer of immigration detainees. “Noncitizens are not bargaining chips to be shifted from district to district as litigation strategy dictates,” Rose stated.Attorneys for ICE later claimed the agency knew nothing of the pending court action when they opted to move Montilla out of the Northern District of Iowa. In a recent court order, Rose said she found ICE’s “ignorance explanation” to be concerning.“Even giving federal respondents every benefit of the doubt — a generous assumption given recent events — these facts suggest that some individuals knew of (Montilla’s court action) and failed to communicate its existence to the appropriate parties,” Rose stated. “Such lapses are far too common in recent immigration cases. The court expects them to cease.”She noted that Montilla’s case was similar to that of Garcia Tevalan, in which the government released a noncitizen into the country, allowing him to remain here for almost 10 years, and then chose to have him jailed as deportation proceedings were initiated.Rose said the government’s release of Montilla into the United States, and the manner in which it allowed him to “build a life” in this country over the next four years, created a for Montilla an interest in securing his liberty that is protected by the due-process clause of the Constitution.While noting “the irony in (ICE) labeling an individual who voluntarily appeared at the ICE office in Cedar Rapids without request from agents a ‘flight risk,’ Rose denied Montilla’s request for immediate release but granted his request for a bond hearing.“When the government seeks to detain someone it previously released, fairness demands that the government shoulder the burden of justifying that detention,” Rose stated in her ruling. “The court therefore orders that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (Montilla’s) continued detention is warranted based on flight risk or dangerousness.”Copyright 2026 Iowa Capital Dispatch. All rights reserved.