Ankle Monitor Orders Surprise Asylum Seekers
For five years, an asylum-seeking woman attended routine check-ins at the immigration office without issue. However, during a recent appointment in October, she was unexpectedly mandated to wear an ankle monitor, according to her attorney, Deepa Bijipuria.
Bijipuria, a supervising attorney in the immigration division of Legal Aid DC, described her client as a single mother who fled severe domestic violence to seek safety, leaving her young daughter behind. This new order marked a significant departure from the protocol she had been following while awaiting a decision on her asylum claim.
The working mother, who requested anonymity due to her precarious situation, reportedly lost at least one job after the imposition of the ankle monitor. Bijipuria noted that her client is among many immigrants caught off guard by similar requirements.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employs electronic monitoring through the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, initially introduced in 2004, to ensure compliance with legal obligations while cases are pending. Although ATD includes methods like app check-ins and phone calls, recent shifts indicate a growing reliance on ankle monitors. Evan Bentz, a senior attorney at the Amica Immigrant Rights Center, pointed to a June 2025 ICE memo directing officers to equip all ATD participants with these devices.
The number of individuals enrolled in the ATD program remained stable; however, participants wearing ankle monitors nearly doubled in subsequent months. According to a February 2026 ICE report, the total increased from approximately 24,000 to about 42,000.
This surge is not uniform across the country. A February ICE report indicated that enforcement levels vary by region, with the Washington, D.C. area housing the highest concentration of ankle monitors. Bentz explained that residents near the D.C. field office, which serves Virginia and D.C., face a greater likelihood of being subjected to ankle monitoring, although the reasons for these regional disparities remain unclear.
An ICE spokesperson stated that the ATD program utilizes “case-by-case decisions” to adjust supervision levels, which allows for variation in compliance measures based on individual circumstances. These decisions consider criminal history, compliance records, and other relevant factors.
Bijipuria emphasized that the arbitrary nature of ankle monitor allocations often misaligns with the compliance of many individuals. She raised concerns over whether the objective of these monitoring systems is truly about ensuring adherence to legal obligations.
Supporting these concerns, a 2021 study by Cardozo School of Law revealed that ankle monitors do not necessarily enhance compliance and may even hinder it. The study found that 98% of immigrants released without electronic monitoring attended all court hearings, compared to 93% of those monitored.
Legal experts point out that the ambiguity surrounding the motives for ankle monitoring orders is exacerbated by the lack of transparency from federal authorities. Following a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit regarding the internal ICE memo, the agency initially committed to publishing it but later cited an ongoing Department of Homeland Security shutdown as a reason for its inability to do so.
Julia Decker, policy director at the Minnesota Immigration Law Center, criticized this lack of transparency as a deliberate strategy to create confusion and fear among immigrant communities. She expressed concern that the broader ATD programs could inadvertently pressure individuals into mistakes leading to detention.
Bentz echoed this sentiment, describing the ATD program as an alternative form of detention, rather than a genuine alternative to it. He highlighted incidents where ICE used ankle monitors as a means to draw individuals into custody under the pretext of addressing monitor malfunctions.
Experts have increasingly highlighted the potential consequences of ankle monitoring. They argue that it not only heightens the risk of detention but also inflicts psychological, economic, and physical harm on those required to wear the devices. Bentz noted that strict supervision conditions, including curfews and travel restrictions, contribute to significant psychological stress.
Bijipuria brought attention to the physical discomfort caused by ankle monitors, which can exacerbate emotional distress and hinder sleep. She further indicated that the combination of deportation threats and the burdens imposed by monitoring devices often coerces individuals into voluntary deportation.
As shifts in immigration policies occur, the Department of Homeland Security must handle requests from individuals to remove or avoid ankle monitoring devices, especially when supported by medical documentation. Legal representation is crucial in navigating these complex situations. Bentz stated that ankle monitoring practices, while seemingly out of the public eye, represent a deeply troubling trend in immigration enforcement.
