The case shows how a family-based immigration appointment can turn into an enforcement action when an old removal order is still unresolved. It also raises fresh anxiety for military families navigating the green card system.
ICE detained an Army veteran’s wife at a green card interview, according to her husband and reporting by Newsweek and ABC7, turning what the family believed was a final immigration step into a detention case. Airida Gould, the Lithuanian-born wife of Army veteran Mark Gould, was taken into custody after a May 14 appointment connected to her marriage-based green card process.
The immigration context of the detention matters because DHS says Gould had a 2009 removal order, while her family says her U.S. marriage and long life here should have been weighed before enforcement. The case matters for military spouses because it shows that marriage to a U.S. citizen, even a veteran, does not automatically shield someone from ICE action.
A green card appointment changed course
Mark Gould, 61, said he went with his wife to a U.S. government building on May 14 for an immigration appointment they believed was near the end of the green card process. In a GoFundMe campaign cited by Newsweek, he wrote that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the couple’s marriage petition that morning.
To the family, that approval was a major milestone: official recognition that the marriage was genuine. But it was not the same as a green card.
Gould wrote that, hours later and in the same building, his wife was handcuffed and taken away by ICE. Newsweek reported that USCIS referred questions to DHS, and DHS emphasized that approval of a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, does not by itself grant immigration status or any immigration benefit.
That distinction is central to the case. A marriage petition can establish a qualifying family relationship, but it does not erase every prior immigration problem or guarantee adjustment to lawful permanent residence.
DHS points to old removal order
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told Newsweek that Airida Gould entered the United States in June 2000 on a visa that allowed her to stay until December 2009. DHS said she overstayed and that an immigration judge ordered her removed in August 2009.
The family does not appear to dispute that a removal order existed. Mark Gould wrote that the order followed a missed or late court appearance, saying his wife arrived late because of road construction and that the matter was never heard on its merits.
That difference in framing explains why the case has drawn attention. For the government, an outstanding removal order can be a basis for detention and removal. For the family, the order is an old procedural event now colliding with a marriage, three U.S.-born children and years of life in the United States.
Newsweek reported that Airida Gould is represented by former Chicago immigration court Judge Carla Espinoza Grcic, and that her legal team filed an Emergency Motion to Reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The outcome of that effort was not clear from the available reporting.
Custody claims sharply diverge
Newsweek reported that ICE’s online detainee locator listed Gould under the name Airida Kesiliene and placed her at the Broadview Service Staging Area in Illinois. ABC7 reported that she had been transferred through facilities in Illinois and Indiana and was being held at a detention facility in Kentucky.
Gould described harsh detention conditions to ABC7, saying people take better care of cats and dogs. She told the station that at one facility she received fresh air for one hour, three times a week.
DHS gave Newsweek a very different account of detention standards. A spokesperson said detainees receive meals, water, medical treatment and opportunities to communicate with family and lawyers. DHS also said ICE provides medical, dental and mental health services as available, along with access to appointments and emergency care.
Those competing descriptions leave readers with two unresolved questions: where exactly Gould was held at each stage, and whether her conditions matched ICE standards or fell short of them. The current public record contains allegations from the family and assurances from DHS, but not an independent inspection tied specifically to her detention.
Deportation fight escalated quickly
Mark Gould told Newsweek on Tuesday night that his wife was being deported from Chicago O’Hare International Airport. He also posted a video to the Facebook page Bring Airida Home, saying she was being deported to Europe after 66 days in custody.
According to Newsweek, he provided flight information showing travel to Warsaw, Poland. His post said ICE allowed him to give his wife cash, cards and a carry-on, but did not allow him to see her or hug her.
It was not immediately clear from the available reporting whether the emergency motion to reopen could stop removal, whether it had already been ruled on, or whether Gould had other pending forms of relief. Those details matter because immigration cases can turn on timing as much as the underlying facts.
For families facing removal orders, a green card case and a motion to reopen can move on separate tracks. A person may be trying to legalize status through a family petition while the government is also moving to enforce an earlier removal order.
Why military families are watching
The military connection gives the story broader resonance, but it does not create a simple legal exemption. Mark Gould’s status as an Army veteran is part of the family’s public appeal, yet the government’s position centers on Airida Gould’s immigration record and the 2009 removal order.
Military families do have some immigration-related programs and discretionary tools available in certain circumstances, including policies that have historically allowed some relatives of service members or veterans to seek stability while applications are pending. But eligibility is fact-specific, and the reporting does not establish whether Gould qualified for or received any such protection.
The case also lands amid wider reports of immigration arrests at appointments and check-ins. Newsweek noted that Gould’s detention comes as the Trump administration intensifies enforcement, including at immigration settings where people are appearing for required or scheduled government processes.
Supporters of tougher enforcement argue that old removal orders must mean something, and that prior violations cannot be ignored because someone later starts a family-based application. Immigrant advocates counter that arresting people at appointments can discourage compliance, split families and punish people who are trying to regularize their status through the system.
The key takeaway for applicants
The most practical lesson from Gould’s case is narrow but important: an approved marriage petition is not the same as lawful permanent residence. It confirms a qualifying relationship, but it does not necessarily resolve unlawful presence, prior removal orders, missed hearings or other grounds that can trigger enforcement.
That is why immigration attorneys often urge applicants with old orders, overstays or prior court history to get legal review before attending interviews or check-ins. A routine appointment can carry very different risks depending on what is already in the government’s file.
For the Gould family, the immediate stakes are personal: whether Airida Gould can remain with her husband and children in the United States, and whether the Board of Immigration Appeals or another authority will revisit the old removal order. For other military spouses and mixed-status families, the case is a warning that the green card process can expose unresolved immigration history rather than quietly fix it.
What remains unclear is whether the government considered any humanitarian, family or military-service-related factors before detention and removal efforts moved forward. Until more records or court filings become public, the case stands as a stark example of how quickly an immigration appointment can shift from paperwork to custody.
Leave a Reply