ICE in California: a UCLA study reveals arrests of migrants during USCIS appointments and in court

Federal agents conducted arrests of migrants during USCIS appointments and in courts across Southern California during 2025 and 2026. The investigation documented nearly 15,000 deportations across seven counties including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. Procedures expanded outside of prisons and jails to include interventions in court buildings and checks with immigration authorities, initiated as part of a strategy tested in the Los Angeles area since June 2025.
Detentions made outside correctional facilities increased significantly, rising from under 200 per month in 2024 to over 1700 in June 2025 within ICE jurisdiction. Arrests without definitive deportation orders increased by nearly 1400% during the June 2025 peak compared to 2024 levels, and detentions of people without criminal records grew by more than 3400% compared to 2024 averages. Among those detained in Los Angeles between January 2025 and May 2026, sixty-two percent were deported within sixty days of detention. Many detainees were moved through temporary facilities like the ICE Advance Processing Center before transfers to centers in Arizona, Louisiana, and Texas.

* ICE conducted arrests of migrants during USCIS appointments and in courts in Southern California during 2025 and 2026.
* The investigation included Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties.
* Agents made detentions in locations such as Home Depot parking lots, residential communities, and courts.
* Detentions outside of penitentiaries increased from less than 200 per month in 2024 to more than 1700 in June 2025 in the Los Angeles ICE jurisdiction.
* Arrests without a definitive deportation order increased by almost 1400% during the June 2025 peak compared to 2024 levels.
* Detentions of people without criminal records grew by more than 3400% compared to the average monthly rate in 2024.
* Almost 15,000 deportations of arrested individuals occurred in the region during 2025 and 2026.
* Sixty-two percent of people arrested between January 2025 and May 2026 were deported within 60 days of detention.
* The proportion of people detained for more than 60 days increased from 15% in 2024 to nearly 30% in 2025 and 2026.
* Many detainees passed through temporary ICE facilities in downtown Los Angeles before transfer to larger centers, including the ICE Advance Processing Center and Desert View Annex.

The data reveals a strategic shift by federal agents to expand detention practices beyond traditional correctional facilities into public spaces, signaling a transformation in federal control mechanisms. The exponential increases in detentions targeting individuals without criminal records suggest an effort to broaden the scope of enforcement, irrespective of formal legal culpability. This focus on pre-deportation or non-criminal status creates a systemic pressure where detention becomes proceduralized rather than strictly punitive.
The pattern of rapid deportation rates (62% within 60 days) juxtaposed against prolonged detention periods suggests that while the physical movement of individuals is expedited, the underlying mechanisms of status determination remain slow and complex. The documented transfers across state lines indicate a decentralized enforcement strategy. Furthermore, the response from authorities—rejection of intensification by the DHS Secretary and appeals to local community action—highlights a divergence between operational reality and official narrative. This tension between localized experience (as voiced by immigration coalitions) and centralized institutional denial points toward a pattern where operational shifts are masked by appeals to established authority, which risks obscuring the lived consequences for those subject to these intensified procedures.
The central implication is how control mechanisms evolve when they integrate spatial enforcement with administrative review. The disproportionate growth in arrests based on status (lack of records) suggests that vulnerability itself has become a target for systemic intervention, creating an environment where legal contestation may be sidelined by the volume and speed of physical detention. What happens when the operational reality of mass detentions outpaces institutional capacity to address individual due process concerns?