Two women held at an immigration detention center in Michigan were transferred to ICE custody after local police responded to domestic disputes, even though prosecutors declined to bring charges in their cases, according to a ProPublica investigation. The women, identified by the outlet as Pilar and Leya, said they were trying to escape abusive relationships. Their accounts are not findings by a court that they were victims of abuse, and the cases show how a local arrest can lead to immigration detention even when criminal charges do not follow.
ProPublica reported that it interviewed six alleged victims held at North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan, reviewed police and jail records, and examined hundreds of habeas petitions filed since January 2025. The outlet found dozens of petitioners who had been arrested on suspicion of domestic violence and turned over to ICE after charges were dropped or never filed. It cautioned, however, that no comprehensive system tracks how often domestic-violence victims are detained or deported.
Two cases at a Michigan detention center
Leya, a woman from Cuba, was arrested by Wyoming police after her boyfriend called 911, ProPublica reported. Prosecutors declined to charge her, citing insufficient evidence, no injuries and no successful interference with the emergency call. She was held in the Kent County jail, which honored an ICE detainer, and transferred to North Lake.
Pilar, an asylum seeker from Peru, was arrested after a dispute with her boyfriend in October 2025. Police sought charges against both of them, but prosecutors filed charges against neither. She was also transferred to ICE custody, according to ProPublica. The investigation distinguishes the women’s allegations of abuse from police accounts and the boyfriends’ competing descriptions of the events.
The outcomes in both cases highlight a gap between the criminal process and immigration custody. A prosecutor’s decision not to file charges did not itself prevent ICE from taking custody after local detention. In Leya’s case, the transfer followed the jail’s decision to honor an ICE detainer; the dossier says local officials transferred Pilar as well, but does not provide further detail about the transfer process in her case.
How local arrests can lead to immigration detention
ProPublica describes a sequence in which police responding to a domestic-violence call arrest someone they believe may be the aggressor, after which immigration authorities can take custody. The investigation reports that this can happen even when prosecutors later decline to file charges. The cases do not establish how frequently this sequence occurs nationally, but the records reviewed by the outlet document multiple instances.
The possibility of arrest can be especially complicated in disputes where both parties accuse each other or where accounts differ. In Pilar’s case, police sought charges against both her and her boyfriend, while prosecutors declined to charge either. The reporting does not resolve the underlying allegations as a court finding. It documents the official decisions and the women’s accounts, which should be kept distinct from a legal determination about what happened.
According to ProPublica, 24 states require an arrest when police have probable cause to believe a domestic assault occurred. The investigation cites Michigan’s training manual and a 2025 Vera Institute report for that figure. Such rules can shape what happens during an initial police response, but the dossier does not establish that a mandatory-arrest rule determined the outcome in either woman’s case.
Survivor protections and policy disputes
Federal law provides immigration relief pathways for some immigrant survivors of abuse through the Violence Against Women Act, ProPublica reported. Those provisions are not a blanket exemption from arrest or deportation for every immigrant who reports abuse. The investigation describes concerns that the prospect of immigration detention could discourage survivors from seeking police assistance, but the available evidence does not quantify how widespread that effect is.
The investigation also places the cases against changes in federal enforcement policy. ProPublica reported that the Trump administration rescinded guidelines limiting enforcement at sensitive locations on January 20, 2025, and changed protections affecting VAWA and other crime-victim applicants later that month. Those policy changes have been challenged in court, and their legal status is not settled.
On May 20, 2026, a federal judge preliminarily certified nationwide classes and blocked portions of the challenged policies in Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem. The order provides interim relief while the litigation continues, rather than a final ruling on the merits. ProPublica reported that the administration appealed.
What the reporting can and cannot establish
The investigation draws on records and interviews, but its cases should not be mistaken for a comprehensive count. ProPublica says it found dozens of habeas petitioners arrested on domestic-violence suspicions and transferred to ICE after charges were dropped or never filed. Because there is no complete tracking system, that finding describes cases documented through the outlet’s research, not the total number of people affected or the rate at which such transfers occur.
The specific accounts of Pilar and Leya are ProPublica’s document-based reporting. The supplied research identifies a Michigan Advance publication of the same investigation, not an independent verification of those cases. The reporting therefore supports a careful account of how local arrest decisions and ICE detainers intersected in these instances, while leaving the broader prevalence and the women’s underlying allegations unresolved.