Ecuadorian Woman Fights ICE’s Ankle‑Monitor Order After Denver Airport Arrest

When Chantal Alejandra Morales Rojas stood in line at Denver International Airport on July 20, she had no idea the routine boarding process would turn into a headline‑making ordeal. The 27‑year‑old Ecuadorian, in the middle of a trip back to Oakland, was stopped by an ICE officer who flashed a Form I‑200 and placed her under arrest.

Morales Rojas entered the United States earlier this year on a J‑1 exchange‑visitor visa to work as an au pair. By her own account – and according to the paperwork filed in court – she remained in good standing and was still legally present when the arrest happened.

After a brief detention at the Denver Contract Detention Facility, an immigration judge ordered her release on bond on July 28. The judge didn’t add any extra conditions; he simply set a monetary amount and let her go.

But the relief was short‑lived. Within days ICE told Morales Rojas she had to wear an ankle‑monitor, report to an office in San Francisco and enroll in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP). In other words, she was still being tightly supervised even though a judge had already cleared her for release.

Now, in an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the U.S. District Court in Colorado, Morales Rojas argues that ICE overstepped its authority. Her lawyers say the agency imposed “constructive custody” – restrictions that amount to a de‑facto detention – without any judicial approval.

The case has drawn a lot of public attention. A GoFundMe set up after her arrest raised over $137,000, and the story has been cited as an example of the Trump administration’s aggressive airport enforcement campaign that, according to The New York Times, opened a “new front” in the deportation effort.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security responded that her work authorization never gave her lawful status and that ICE is simply enforcing the law. They reiterated that GPS‑based monitoring tools, like ankle or wrist devices, are commonly used for “illegal aliens” – a term they use for non‑citizens in removal proceedings – to ensure compliance.

For Morales Rojas, the crux of the dispute is whether ICE can add conditions that the immigration judge never ordered. If the court sides with her, it could set an early precedent limiting how far immigration officials can go in tethering people after release.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O’Hara has already asked the government to explain why the amended petition shouldn’t be granted, giving them a deadline of September 10. Morales Rojas has until September 15 to file a reply. The case is still pending, and the legal community is watching closely.