At SFO, Green-Card Holders Are Being Kept for Days in Rooms Built for Short-Term Detention — Is America Better Yet?

Eight Days

A lawful permanent resident in his late 60s arrived at a California airport this year and ended up spending eight days in federal custody at San Francisco International Airport.

He had diabetes.

According to reporting by the San Francisco Chronicle, he was held in a windowless room without beds, slept sitting upright in a chair under constant lighting, and did not have a reliable way to check his blood sugar.

He was not alone.

Federal data reviewed by the Chronicle show that through July, 25 people were held at SFO for more than 72 hours by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Nineteen were lawful permanent residents — green-card holders.

Nationwide, more than 400 people have been held at international airports beyond 72 hours since January. At least 146 were lawful permanent residents, according to the same reporting.

That matters because CBP itself says people generally should not remain in its custody that long.

Its published detention guidance says the agency makes every effort to process, release, transfer or repatriate people promptly and generally tries not to hold individuals longer than 72 hours.

The finding does not, by itself, prove that every detention lasting longer than three days was illegal.

But it raises a basic accountability question:

Why are people being held for days inside airport rooms designed for short-term processing — and who authorized the change?

An airport room becomes a detention facility

CBP calls the SFO space an “in-transit lounge.”

The Chronicle’s reporting paints a different picture of what prolonged confinement there can mean.

There are no beds.

People interviewed by the newspaper described sleeping in chairs, remaining under constant lighting and having limited contact with relatives or attorneys.

The 67-year-old lawful permanent resident reported that he spent eight days there after arriving in California from Mexico. He had been a permanent resident for decades.

His case also shows why the medical question matters.

CBP’s own detention standards contain requirements for identifying medical needs and caring for people considered at risk while in custody.

Yet the Chronicle reported that the man could not regularly monitor his blood sugar during his detention.

The public record does not yet establish what medical screening CBP performed, what treatment was offered, or whether an outside medical professional evaluated him.

Those records matter.

Most of the people held past 72 hours had green cards

The numbers make this more than an isolated complaint.

Of the 25 people held at SFO beyond 72 hours through July, 19 were lawful permanent residents.

Eighteen of the 25 were ultimately transferred from CBP custody to Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, according to the Chronicle’s analysis.

A green card does not guarantee that a traveler returning from abroad cannot be questioned, detained or placed into immigration proceedings.

Certain criminal histories, immigration violations and other circumstances can trigger additional inspection or proceedings.

But lawful permanent residence is also not the same thing as being an undocumented immigrant encountered during an ordinary interior enforcement operation.

That distinction matters because some of the people now spending days inside airport holding rooms have lived legally in the United States for years or decades.

A member of Congress tried to see what was happening

Rep. Kevin Mullin, whose district includes SFO, attempted an unannounced inspection of the holding area on August 20.

According to the Chronicle, CBP initially denied him access.

He returned on August 26 and was allowed inside, where he saw five people being detained.

Mullin said officers indicated that the extended detention reflected a policy change rather than a handful of unusual cases.

That may be the most important unresolved part of this story.

IABY has not located the written directive.

We therefore do not yet know:

• Who issued it.
• When it took effect.
• Whether it applies nationwide.
• What conditions permit CBP to hold someone beyond 72 hours.
• What medical, legal-access and supervisory safeguards are required when a short-term airport hold becomes a multiday detention.
• Whether CBP headquarters reviews cases that exceed its normal detention period.

Those are not minor details.

They determine whether what is happening at SFO is an improvised response to individual cases or part of a deliberate national enforcement change.

CBP’s own public guidance says something different

CBP publicly describes its facilities as short-term holding environments.

On its own website, the agency says:

“Generally, CBP tries not to hold individuals in custody for longer than 72 hours.”

The agency says detainees should receive appropriate conditions, basic medical care, drinking water, meals and other necessities while officials work to process, transfer, release or repatriate them.

That language is important.

It is also important not to claim more than it proves.

The 72-hour provision is an agency detention standard, not a simple statutory clock that automatically makes detention unlawful at hour 73.

There may be circumstances in which CBP can justify holding someone longer.

But when the exception begins appearing hundreds of times — and when most people held beyond that period at one major airport are lawful permanent residents — the exception itself requires explanation.

What we know

The evidence currently establishes that:

• 25 people were held at SFO for longer than 72 hours through July 2026.
• 19 were lawful permanent residents.
• More than 400 people nationwide were held at international airports beyond 72 hours during the same period.
• 146 of them were green-card holders.
• At least one older lawful permanent resident with diabetes reported being held at SFO for eight days without a reliable way to monitor his blood sugar.
• Rep. Kevin Mullin initially was denied access to the detention area before being admitted several days later.
• CBP’s own public guidance says it generally tries not to hold people for longer than 72 hours.

What we do not know

We have not located the written policy or directive that apparently changed how these airport cases are handled.

We do not know who authorized it.

We do not know how broadly it applies.

We do not know how many people have been held for four, five, six, seven or more days at individual airports.

We do not yet have the medical records, custody logs or supervisory reviews for the individual cases described in the Chronicle investigation.

And we do not know whether DHS or CBP has conducted any internal review of the increase in prolonged airport detention.

Those are records IABY believes should be public.

The question is bigger than SFO

Airports have traditionally been places where CBP conducts immigration inspection.

That is not new.

What appears to be changing is how long some people remain there and what happens while the government decides what to do with them.

A room designed to hold someone for processing is one thing.

Keeping an older man with diabetes in that room for eight days is something else.

If CBP has deliberately changed its policy, the public should be able to see that policy.

We should know what problem the government says it is solving.

We should know what safeguards were created before people began spending days inside these rooms.

And we should know whether CBP is following its own standards.

What IABY is watching next

IABY will continue looking for:

• The written CBP or DHS directive governing prolonged airport detention.
• Additional national detention data.
• Medical-care records where they become public.
• Congressional oversight.
• Litigation challenging individual detentions.
• Evidence showing whether the practice has expanded beyond SFO.

If the government explains the policy, we will add that explanation.

If the records contradict what we know now, we will correct the record.

This is a living investigation.

Sources

San Francisco Chronicle — Sept. 1, 2026
Investigation and federal-data analysis concerning prolonged CBP detention at San Francisco International Airport.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/sfo-immigration-detention-ice-22405344.php

U.S. Customs and Border Protection — National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search
https://www.cbp.gov/document/directives/cbp-national-standards-transport-escort-detention-and-search

U.S. Customs and Border Protection — Public guidance concerning CBP custody and the agency’s general 72-hour detention standard
https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1907

Watch IABY for updates. Subscribe free to get new reporting by email.

AI tools assist with research, organization and editing. AI output is not evidence. All factual claims are checked against identified sources before publication.

I write for you.

— Roberto

https://isamericabetteryet.org

© 2026 Roberto Zapatero / Is America Better Yet? All rights reserved.