Tae Heung “Will” Kim, forty years old, a doctoral researcher at Texas A&M, was taken by U.S. immigration at San Francisco International Airport after a family trip abroad. Removal proceedings were instituted against Kim as a result of a minor drug offense from 2011, where he was convicted of a misdemeanor for marijuana possession and made to do community service.
According to Kim’s team, he had fulfilled all legal requirements for the offense and had even sealed the record. However, he was still detained by CBP and ICE, who allege that the outdated conviction represented a disqualifying immigration violation.
His attorneys have expressed concerns about how he has been treated in detention. After being held in airport custody for more than seven days and being denied any communication and consultation with legal counsel, he was said to have been sleeping on chairs in an area kept continuously lighted. There are issues about his overall health condition: Kim is asthmatic and takes medication that he may have been unable to obtain properly. His mother was reported to be very worried about his health.
Legal Rights and Broader Implications for Immigrants
This case has highlighted a growing controversy about immigration enforcement under the current administration. The CBP policy provides for green card holders convicted of drug offenses to be issued a Notice to Appear and thereafter may be taken into ICE custody pending removal proceedings. But offenses deemed minor, committed a long time ago, and available for waivers are hardly expected to lead to a long detention. Experts and civil rights groups argue Kim’s case is an instance of overreach and unusual in terms of operational standards.
According to lawyers, federal guidelines mandate a 72-hour limit for airport detention, but Kim stayed in custody for far more than that. He further raises worries regarding violations of his constitutional rights, especially the protections found in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, for permanent residents. Reportedly, when authorities spoke to Kim’s attorneys, they declared that constitutional rights do not apply in Kim’s case.
As civil rights advocates have grown furious over Kim’s detention, they have called for his immediate release and legal clarity. The case sends a warning to other legal residents with minor infractions: international travel even for a brief visit may trigger unexpected and troubling legal consequences. Advocates are urging green card holders to seek immigration counsel before journeying abroad.
Kim’s case illustrates a growing concern in the U.S. immigration machinery and reveals the tensions between criminal law, immigration and civil rights in the treatment of longtime legal residents.
