Immigration enforcement operations in Michigan led to the arrests of five noncitizens between October 12 and October 18, according to a statement released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on October 26, 2026.
Table of Contents
Immigration Enforcement Update
The arrests were part of immigration enforcement activity in Detroit and Grand Rapids and involved people from Venezuela, the Philippines and Guatemala, DHS said.
The agency described the individuals as among the “worst” noncitizens arrested recently in the state, citing alleged or documented criminal conduct that included armed robbery, assault, identity theft, weapons offenses, retail fraud, forgery, domestic violence and driving under the influence of liquor.
DHS said some of the people had entered the United States without authorization, while others had entered lawfully but later became removable because of criminal convictions or overstays.
The department’s statement also said that two of the people arrested had already received final orders of removal from an immigration judge.
What DHS said about the Michigan arrests
Amilcar Jose Suarez Barreto, identified by DHS as a Venezuelan national, was arrested by ICE in Grand Rapids on October 12.
DHS said his listed criminal history includes an arrest for felony armed robbery, four arrests for assault, four for trespassing, two for property damage, felony possession of a weapon, shoplifting, larceny, resisting an officer, obstructing justice and escape or violation of electronic monitoring.
The agency said Suarez Barreto entered the United States through Texas in July 2023 and was released into the country while the Biden administration was in office.
DHS said an immigration judge issued a final order of removal in his case on January 27, 2025.
Sarah Jane Hulbert, identified as a Philippine national, was arrested in Detroit on October 16.
According to DHS, Hulbert has convictions for aggravated identity theft involving between $10,000 and $100,000 against a person age 60 or older, as well as domestic violence.
The agency also listed arrests for driving under the influence of liquor, intimidation or physical harm, forgery, harassment, obstructing police and computer fraud.
DHS said Hulbert was first lawfully admitted to the United States in August 2004 but later became inadmissible after her criminal convictions.
The department said she was subsequently taken into custody by Customs and Border Protection and released back into the country while the Biden administration was in office.
Kelvin Ramon Castillo Rodriguez, identified as a Venezuelan national, was arrested in Detroit on October 18.
DHS said his criminal history includes an arrest for assault.
The agency said Castillo Rodriguez entered the United States near Hidalgo, Texas, in April 2023 and was released into the country while the Biden administration was in office.
Elmer Domingo Lopez Tomas, identified as a Guatemalan national, was also arrested in Detroit on October 18.
DHS said Lopez Tomas was lawfully admitted to the United States in March 2025 but failed to leave after his authorized period expired in July 2025.
The agency listed an arrest for a felony weapons offense in his criminal history.
Anderson Jesus Rosales Ramos, identified as a Venezuelan national, was arrested in Grand Rapids on October 16.
DHS said his criminal history includes an arrest for second-degree retail fraud.
The agency said Rosales Ramos entered the United States through Texas in August 2023 and was released into the country while the Biden administration was in office.
DHS said an immigration judge issued a final order of removal in his case on January 19, 2024.
Why final removal orders matter
A final order of removal is different from a newly filed immigration case or an unresolved criminal allegation.
Under the immigration court system, an immigration judge determines whether a person is removable and whether the person qualifies for relief from removal.
A decision can generally be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals within the applicable deadline.
If a timely appeal is not filed, or if an appeal is resolved and no further stay applies, the removal order can become final.
ICE says its officers carry out immigration enforcement removals only under lawful authority, including final orders of removal.
The agency also says that an immigration detainer or ICE arrest does not automatically mean a person will be deported.
People encountered through immigration enforcement remain entitled to due process under the law, and individual cases may involve appeals, motions to reopen, requests for relief, stays of removal or other legal proceedings.
The DHS statement identifies final orders for Suarez Barreto and Rosales Ramos, but it does not state in the release whether either person had been removed from the United States as of October 26, 2026.
Arrests are not the same as convictions
The DHS announcement uses different terms when describing the criminal histories of the five people.
For Hulbert, the release specifically identifies convictions for aggravated identity theft and domestic violence.
For the other individuals, the release primarily refers to arrests or listed criminal-history entries.
An arrest is not the same as a conviction, and the DHS statement does not provide court records, case numbers, charging documents or final dispositions for every listed offense.
That distinction is especially important in reporting on immigration enforcement because criminal allegations and immigration removability are separate legal issues.
A person may be placed in immigration enforcement proceedings because of an unlawful entry, an overstay, a criminal conviction, a pending criminal case or another ground under federal immigration law.
The release does not say that each listed arrest resulted in a conviction.
How the cases may proceed
ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division manages immigration enforcement arrests, detention, case processing and removals.
For people who already have final removal orders, ICE may coordinate travel and removal after reviewing custody, identity, country-of-removal and other operational issues.
For people without final orders, the government may need to pursue or continue removal proceedings unless another legal authority permits removal.
Immigration court proceedings may include hearings on removability, bond, applications for relief and appeals.
The outcome of an ICE arrest in an immigration enforcement case can therefore vary substantially from one case to another.
Possible outcomes may include release with conditions, continued detention, a new or previously issued removal order, an appeal, a grant of relief or removal from the United States.
The DHS announcement does not provide detention locations, bond decisions, attorneys of record, hearing dates or the current procedural posture for the three people not identified as having final removal orders.
DHS frames arrests as public-safety enforcement
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the arrests demonstrate the department’s approach to immigration enforcement and public safety.
DHS characterized the five cases as examples of ICE’s immigration enforcement work against people it says have criminal histories or immigration violations.
The department’s release also criticized prior decisions to release some of the individuals into the country, attributing those releases to the Biden administration.
That characterization is DHS’s description of the cases and was not accompanied in the release by individual custody records or court documents.
The agency did not announce a new regulation, eligibility rule or statewide enforcement program in the October 26 statement.
Instead, the release highlighted individual arrests and reiterated DHS’s position that ICE will pursue removable noncitizens through immigration enforcement across Michigan.
What families and attorneys should verify
People who believe a family member has been arrested through immigration enforcement should verify the person’s identity, detention location and immigration court history through official government systems or qualified legal counsel.
Families should gather copies of prior immigration decisions, notices to appear, final removal orders, criminal court records and any documents showing lawful status or pending applications.
Anyone with a removal order should obtain legal advice promptly before filing a motion, seeking a stay or attempting to reopen a case.
EOIR states that court documents and case notices are the official sources for an individual’s immigration court status.
The DHS announcement provides no information indicating that the five arrests represent all immigration enforcement activity in Michigan during the period.
It also does not state whether additional arrests occurred outside the five highlighted cases.
Further details would need to come from ICE, DHS, immigration court records or related criminal court documents.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many people did DHS say ICE arrested in Michigan?
DHS said ICE arrested five noncitizens in Michigan between October 12 and October 18, 2026.
Where did the Michigan arrests occur?
The arrests occurred in Detroit and Grand Rapids, according to the DHS statement.
Did all five people have criminal convictions?
No. DHS identified convictions for Sarah Jane Hulbert but described arrests or criminal-history entries for the other individuals. An arrest does not establish a conviction.
Did any of the people have final removal orders?
DHS said Amilcar Jose Suarez Barreto and Anderson Jesus Rosales Ramos had final removal orders issued by immigration judges.
Does an ICE arrest automatically mean deportation?
No. ICE says people remain entitled to due process, and an arrest does not automatically mean that a person will be removed from the United States.
Fact-Checked: The article was checked against the DHS release dated October 26, 2026 and current official ICE and EOIR guidance on detention, removal orders and immigration proceedings.
Disclaimer: This article summarizes an agency announcement and does not determine the legal status or criminal liability of any individual.
New Minimum Wage In Canada and 5 Provinces, Effective April 1
