The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision to detain Alfredo Juarez-Perez pending trial on a new charge of illegal reentry, ruling that an existing immigration detainer does not automatically eliminate the risk of flight under the Bail Reform Act. The court found that Juarez-Perez’s extensive and alarming history of reentering the U.S. illegally, coupled with serious underlying convictions, justified his continued detention.
The case centers on a familiar issue in federal courts: how to balance a defendant’s right to pretrial release against the government’s interest in ensuring appearance in court, especially when immigration enforcement is also involved.
The Defendant’s Troubling Record
Alfredo Juarez-Perez, a Mexican citizen, was arrested in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, in March 2025 after reentering the United States illegally for what was alleged to be the third time. His criminal background is extensive, dating back to at least 1992. It includes state convictions for sexual assaults, failure to register as a sex offender, and driving while intoxicated, as well as federal convictions for cocaine distribution and previous illegal reentries. Furthermore, he has a documented history of using aliases to deceive law enforcement and violating release conditions by missing court dates.
Upon his arrest on the latest illegal reentry charge, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged a detainer against him, signaling their intent to take custody for removal proceedings once his federal case concludes.
The Magistrate Judge’s Initial Decision
Initially, a magistrate judge ordered Juarez-Perez released. The magistrate acknowledged that Juarez-Perez would present a serious flight risk without the detainer. However, the presence of the ICE detainer—and an ICE agent in the courtroom—convinced the judge that Juarez-Perez would effectively remain in government custody, pending his removal, thus mitigating the flight risk for the purpose of the criminal case.
The District Court Steps In
The government immediately challenged this finding, asking the district court to revoke the release order. Applying the standards set out in the federal Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), the district court disagreed with the magistrate judge.
Judge William M. Conley found that, even setting aside his immigration status and the detainer, the statutory factors weighed heavily toward detention. Specifically, the court pointed to four critical issues:
1. Juarez-Perez’s serious criminal record, including multiple sex offenses and drug trafficking convictions.
2. The strong evidence supporting the new charge that he had illegally reentered the country for a third time.
3. The incentive he would have to agree to rapid deportation if released, avoiding a potentially longer sentence for the third reentry offense.
4. His demonstrated pattern of immediately returning to the U.S. after removal, often using fraudulent documents and aliases to evade authorities, including sex offender registration requirements.
The district court concluded that no set of release conditions could reasonably assure his appearance in court.
The Seventh Circuit Agrees: Immigration Status is Not a Shield
The Seventh Circuit panel, composed of Judges Easterbrook, Scudder, and Pryor, swiftly affirmed the district court’s detention order. Writing for the court, Judge Scudder emphasized that the Bail Reform Act governs pretrial detention based on the criminal case, irrespective of any concurrent immigration enforcement action.
The court made clear that the judiciary’s role is not to mediate between the Department of Justice (prosecuting the crime) and the Department of Homeland Security (handling removal). The controlling question remains whether detention is appropriate under the standards Congress set for the criminal proceeding.
The opinion noted that while Juarez-Perez was not charged with an offense listed in § 3142(f)(1) that mandates detention, the government successfully argued under § 3142(f)(2)(A) that he posed a serious risk of flight.
The Seventh Circuit found the district court’s reasoning sound, particularly the finding that temporary custody pending removal would not substantially reduce the risk of flight. The defendant’s history shows that if released, he would likely reenter the U.S. almost immediately using aliases.
Regarding the definition of “flight risk,” the court rejected any notion that the risk only applies to leaving the specific federal jurisdiction (Wisconsin). Citing precedent, the court defined flight as an “intentional act by a defendant to evade criminal prosecution.” Juarez-Perez’s long history of using aliases and defying registration requirements demonstrates a clear propensity to evade authorities generally, not just a specific geographic jurisdiction.
Because his history showed an unwillingness to abide by court-imposed requirements, the Seventh Circuit agreed that no combination of release conditions could reasonably assure his presence at trial. Therefore, the motion for release pending trial was denied.