Federal immigration officers detained a Ukrainian woman during what was supposed to be a routine green card interview at a San Diego-area U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, NBC 7 San Diego reports. The unexpected arrest, which unfolded in front of her American husband and young child, is raising fresh questions about immigration enforcement practices, the risks facing noncitizens who voluntarily appear at government appointments, and the treatment of families seeking legal status amid ongoing turmoil in Ukraine. As advocates condemn the action and federal officials defend their procedures, the case is drawing regional and national attention to a little‑seen intersection of family-based immigration and deportation policy.
Timeline of the ICE detention during a routine green card interview in San Diego
What began as a routine step in the marriage-based residency process unfolded hour by hour into a coordinated enforcement action. The couple arrived early at the downtown San Diego U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office, passing security and checking in like dozens of others waiting for their turn. Inside the interview room, they were asked standard questions about their relationship, address history, and financial ties. According to the husband, the tone shifted when an official stepped out briefly, then returned with additional personnel. Within minutes, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers entered, identified the Ukrainian woman by name, and informed her she was being taken into custody based on a prior removal order.
The abrupt shift from administrative review to detention appeared to be the result of interagency coordination, with ICE agents already positioned in the building. Witnesses described a quiet but visibly tense scene as the woman was escorted away, leaving her spouse in the interview room with little explanation. Outside, advocates say the timing of the arrest sends a chilling message to immigrant families who view USCIS appointments as a neutral space. Key moments reported by those familiar with the case include:
- Arrival at the USCIS office for a scheduled marriage-based green card interview.
- Standard questioning by an adjudications officer on marital history and documentation.
- Unexpected pause in the interview and the arrival of ICE officers.
- On-the-spot notification of an outstanding deportation order.
- Immediate transfer from the interview room to immigration custody.
| Time | Event | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Morning | Couple checks in for interview | USCIS lobby |
| Shortly after | Interview begins, routine questions | Interview room |
| Midway | Officer steps out, ICE notified | Restricted area |
| Minutes later | Detention by ICE agents | Interview room corridor |
| Following hour | Transfer to detention facility | Off-site location |
Legal experts question due process and transparency in immigration enforcement actions
Legal scholars and immigrant-rights attorneys say the woman’s detention highlights persistent gaps in procedural safeguards when civil immigration enforcement intersects with routine benefits interviews. They argue that couples attending marriage-based residency appointments do so with an expectation of administrative review, not arrest, and that the sudden shift from a USCIS interview room to ICE custody blurs the line between service and enforcement. Critics contend that when people are taken into custody without clear notice of the risks, it can undermine the fundamental principles of due process, including the ability to meaningfully consult with counsel and present evidence in a non-coercive setting.
Advocates also point to a broader lack of transparency around how and when ICE coordinates with USCIS in such cases. Immigration attorneys report that clients rarely receive written explanations in advance regarding potential enforcement outcomes, leaving families to navigate what feels like an opaque system. Key concerns raised by legal experts include:
- Unclear coordination protocols between USCIS and ICE during scheduled interviews.
- Limited access to legal representation at the moment of detention in federal buildings.
- Inconsistent public guidance on enforcement priorities in marriage-based cases.
- Chilling effect on immigrants’ willingness to pursue lawful status.
| Issue | Legal Concern | Impact on Families |
|---|---|---|
| Surprise Detention | Lack of notice, contested fairness | Shock, emotional distress |
| Access to Counsel | Hindered ability to defend | Rushed decisions, confusion |
| Information Sharing | Minimal public guidelines | Mistrust of federal agencies |
Impact on Ukrainian refugees and mixed status families seeking lawful permanent residence
The arrest resonates far beyond a single family, sending ripples of anxiety through Ukrainian nationals who arrived under emergency protections and are now cautiously navigating the U.S. immigration system. Many who fled the war believed that attending scheduled government appointments-particularly those linked to lawful permanent residence-would be a safe and predictable step toward stability. Instead, advocates say this incident has created a chilling effect, with some Ukrainian refugees and mixed‑status families now hesitating to appear for interviews, biometrics appointments, or check-ins out of fear that cooperation could lead to detention or separation. Community groups report an uptick in calls from worried spouses and parents asking whether they should cancel or reschedule critical immigration proceedings.
Legal experts warn that such enforcement actions blur the line between humanitarian policy and deportation strategy, muddying public understanding of what protections, if any, exist for vulnerable families. For many, the episode underscores the fragile nature of their status and raises questions about how different agencies share information and exercise discretion. In this climate, families seeking green cards are increasingly turning to legal counsel and community organizations for guidance on how to balance compliance with self-protection, including:
- Verifying any prior removal orders or old immigration cases before attending interviews
- Coordinating with attorneys to accompany applicants to key appointments
- Preparing emergency childcare and contact plans in case of unexpected detention
- Documenting humanitarian factors such as U.S. citizen children, medical needs and war-related trauma
| Group | Main Concern | Immediate Response |
|---|---|---|
| Ukrainian refugees | Fear of detention at routine appointments | Seeking legal screenings |
| Mixed-status families | Risk of family separation | Creating safety and care plans |
| Advocacy groups | Erosion of trust in immigration processes | Calling for clearer enforcement guidelines |
Policy changes and oversight measures advocates say are urgently needed to prevent similar detentions
Immigration attorneys and civil rights organizations are calling for a series of structural safeguards designed to stop routine immigration appointments from becoming de facto traps. They argue that USCIS and ICE must be formally separated in practice, not only on paper, with clear prohibitions on using marriage-based interviews, biometrics appointments, and check-ins as opportunities for surprise arrests. Among the proposals gaining traction are mandatory advance notice to counsel before any enforcement action at a federal building, and an automatic pause on detention for people actively pursuing legal status, unless a judge has found them to be a public safety risk. Advocates say that without binding rules and external monitoring, promises of “case-by-case discretion” remain opaque and easily reversed by internal policy memos.
- Codified limits on ICE enforcement at USCIS offices and other “sensitive locations”
- Independent oversight by inspectors general or a civilian review board
- Transparent data reporting on arrests linked to immigration appointments
- Guaranteed access to counsel before and immediately after any custody decision
- Humanitarian protections for applicants from active war zones, such as Ukraine
| Proposed Reform | Intended Safeguard |
|---|---|
| Written inter-agency firewalls | Prevents interviews from doubling as arrest operations |
| Real-time legal notification rules | Ensures detainees are not isolated from attorneys |
| Quarterly public detention reports | Allows watchdogs to detect patterns and abuse |
| Case review panels for war refugees | Adds a humanitarian lens to enforcement decisions |
In Retrospect
As this case continues to unfold, it highlights the growing tension between immigration enforcement and the processes designed to provide clarity and stability for families seeking legal status. Advocates say the woman’s detention may have a chilling effect on other immigrants pursuing lawful avenues, while federal officials maintain they are acting within their legal authority.
For now, questions remain about how often such detentions occur at routine immigration appointments, what guidance is being followed, and how policies might change amid ongoing national debates over immigration reform. NBC 7 will continue to follow this story and provide updates as more information becomes available from immigration authorities, legal representatives, and the woman’s family.
