Extension of immigration detention: 26 days, 30 days, 90 days, 210 days (2026)
Every extension requires a hearing before the judge
Steps taken by the administration, consular laissez-passer, prospect of removal — in Bordeaux
Immigration detention does not run as one single block. It moves forward in closed periods, and each new period requires the authorisation of a judge: at regular intervals, the administration must justify before a magistrate what it has done. This page describes the sequence in 2026, what the judge reviews at each step and what is argued. No outcome can be guaranteed.
The full sequence: 96 hours, then 26 days, then 30 days
The prefect decides the first four days. Everything after that belongs to the judicial judge.
The prefect orders the placement for a maximum of ninety-six hours (CESEDA, Article L. 741-1). Before that period expires, he must apply to the judge of the judicial court — still commonly called the liberty and custody judge (JLD) — for a first extension of twenty-six days (Article L. 742-3): detention then reaches thirty days.
Beyond that, Article L. 742-4 allows a second extension of thirty days, then a single renewal of thirty days: ninety days in all, the ordinary-law ceiling. A derogating regime, reserved for an exhaustive list of situations, goes up to 180 and then 210 days (Articles L. 742-6 and L. 742-7, Act of 27 July 2026), and Article L. 741-7 caps the aggregate of detention periods ordered for one and the same removal measure.
These durations are legal maximums, never normal durations. Every day of detention must be justified by a prospect of removal.
First extension
26 days
Requested by the prefecture before the initial 96 hours expire (CESEDA, Article L. 742-3)
Ordinary-law ceiling
90 days: 96 hours, 26 days, then two periods of 30 days (Articles L. 742-3 and L. 742-4).
Appeal against each order
24 hours to apply to the First President of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal — see the appeal procedure.
The detention timetable in 2026
Maximum durations, applicable texts, deciding authority
| Period | Duration and aggregate | Who decides — text |
|---|---|---|
| Initial placement | 96 hours — 4 days | Prefect — Article L. 741-1 |
| First extension | 26 days — 30 days in all | Judge of the judicial court — Article L. 742-3 |
| Second extension | 30 days — 60 days in all | Judge of the judicial court — Article L. 742-4 |
| Third extension (single renewal) | 30 days — 90 days in all, the ordinary-law ceiling | Judge of the judicial court — Article L. 742-4 |
| Derogating regime (terrorism, serious convictions and a present threat) | Extensions of 30 days — up to 180 days | Judge of the judicial court — Article L. 742-6 |
| Exceptional extension of the derogating regime | A further 30 days — 210 days in all | Judge of the judicial court — Article L. 742-7 |
| Aggregate for one and the same removal measure | 360 days — 540 days under the derogating regime, 5 placements at most | Article L. 741-7 |
| Appeal against each order | 24 hours — decision within 48 hours | First President of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal — Article L. 743-21 |
Warning: applying for legal aid does not interrupt the twenty-four-hour time limit for appeal.
What the judge must check at each extension
The steps taken by the administration and the prospect of removal
An extension hearing is not a repeat of the first one. The debate no longer turns mainly on the lawfulness of the arrest or of the notification of rights, but on what the administration has done since the last hearing.
The judge examines the steps taken by the prefecture: the date the consulate was contacted, the request for a consular laissez-passer and the reminders sent, the consular interview, the booking of a flight. An administration that produces an empty file, or claims to have been waiting for a reply for weeks without evidence, puts at risk the extension it is asking for.
The judge then examines the reasonable prospect of removal. Detention intended to organise a departure presupposes that this departure remains possible within a foreseeable time. Where the consulate does not recognise the person, where no reply has arrived after several weeks, or where there is no connection to the country of return, detention loses its purpose.
The reservation of the Constitutional Council.
Ruling on the lengthening of detention periods, the Constitutional Council attached to its decision of 23 July 2026 (no. 2026-906 DC) a reservation of interpretation: every extension must remain proportionate and presupposes a reasonable prospect of removal, the judge being required to review the steps taken by the administration. That reservation can be relied on directly before the judge of the judicial court.
At every hearing the judge also retains the power to order house arrest rather than continued detention, where the guarantees that the person will remain available are effective: passport handed over against a receipt, verifiable accommodation (Article L. 743-13). That alternative request usefully appears in the written submissions on extension.
Second and third extensions: the cases listed in Article L. 742-4
Beyond thirty days, the administration must fall within a case provided for by law
The first extension of twenty-six days is not confined to any list of cases. The following ones are. Article L. 742-4 of the CESEDA sets out the only situations in which the judge may be "seised again for an extension of detention beyond thirty days". There are three of them.
1. Absolute urgency or a threat to public order
A case often relied on where the file contains a criminal record. It cannot be inferred from an old or isolated conviction: the threat must be established, present, and related to the person's current situation.
2. Loss of documents, concealment of identity, deliberate obstruction
The text covers the impossibility of removal resulting "from the loss or destruction of the person's travel documents, from the concealment of his identity or from deliberate obstruction of his removal". That allegation of conduct must be proved. Refusing to sign a document is not always obstruction; not having a passport is not the same as having destroyed it; an identity disputed by a consulate is not a concealed identity.
3. A laissez-passer not issued, issued too late, or the lack of transport
The third case covers removal that could not be carried out because of the failure of the consulate to issue travel documents, or because those documents "arrived too late to carry out the removal decision", or again because of the lack of means of transport. This is the most frequent case: detention continues because the consulate does not reply.
The article allows an extension because of consular silence, not the indefinite continuation of a detention that has lost its purpose: this is where the Constitutional Council's reservation comes into play. The longer detention lasts, the more the consulate's silence ceases to be a ground for extension and becomes proof that no removal is in sight.
Each extension ordered on that basis runs for thirty days at most, from the expiry of the preceding period. It may be renewed only once, on the same conditions: the maximum duration then does not exceed ninety days.
The derogating regime: 180 then 210 days
Who is concerned, and who is not
The periods of 180 and 210 days do not concern detained persons generally. Articles L. 742-6 and L. 742-7 of the CESEDA, in force since 29 July 2026, reserve that regime for exhaustively defined situations:
- — persons sentenced to a ban from French territory for acts of terrorism, or subject to a removal measure ordered because of conduct linked to terrorist activities;
- — persons definitively convicted of certain particularly serious crimes or offences, punishable by at least five years' imprisonment, and who represent a genuine, present and particularly serious threat to public order.
In those cases, detention may be extended by periods of thirty days up to a maximum of 180 days (Article L. 742-6). Article L. 742-7 allows, exceptionally, one further application in the cases provided for in Article L. 742-4: the total duration then does not exceed 210 days.
Falling within that regime is a legal classification, based on defined convictions and on an established threat: it must be proved and can be argued. It does not relieve the administration of the duty to demonstrate, at every hearing, the steps it has taken and a prospect of removal.
The aggregate ceiling: 360 days, 540 days, five placements
A limit assessed over the whole removal measure
The administration may take a new detention decision to carry out the same removal measure if the person's conduct still represents a threat to public order, if he has evaded supervision measures, or where there is a new circumstance. That decision must contain specific reasons and take account of the detention periods already served.
Article L. 741-7, as worded by the Act of 27 July 2026, sets two limits: the aggregate duration of detention periods for carrying out one and the same removal measure may not exceed three hundred and sixty days — raised to five hundred and forty days where detention has been extended on the basis of Article L. 742-6 — and the foreign national may not be the subject of more than five placements in detention to carry out the same measure.
The same article entrusts the judge of the judicial court, seised of a new placement or of an extension, with checking that the deprivation of liberty does not exceed what is strictly necessary, taking account of earlier detention periods. This is a ground in its own right: the full history of placements must be reconstructed.
When detention grows longer: the weight of consular delays
What the published figures say for Bordeaux
Long periods of detention are most often explained by waiting for a document that the French administration does not itself issue: the consular laissez-passer.
The report published by associations on 19 May 2026 for the year 2025 gives, for Bordeaux, an average detention period of thirty-eight days, against twenty-seven the previous year and thirty-three nationally. For persons of Algerian nationality, the same source records an average of forty-seven days. That statistic describes a trend linked to one consulate's response times; it is no basis for any individual forecast.
Where the average is well over thirty days, the second and third extensions become the main ground of the defence, and disclosure of the documents of the consular procedure is requested at every hearing.
What the family can provide before each hearing
Documents updated from one hearing to the next
- — An up-to-date accommodation file: a signed and dated statement, the host's identity document and proof of address, a recent rent receipt. A statement from this week is worth more than one from three months ago.
- — The original passport, a condition of house arrest (Article L. 743-13): it is handed over against a receipt, a photocopy is not enough.
- — What has changed since the last hearing: a birth, a marriage, a hospital stay, a job offer, school enrolment, a decision of another court, a residence permit application filed.
- — Medical material: certificates, prescriptions, hospital reports, ongoing treatment. The centre's doctor may be asked to see the person.
Documents must reach the lawyer before the hearing, so they can be filed and discussed. See the page for families.
After the order: the appeal within 24 hours
The shortest time limit in the whole procedure
Any extension order may be appealed against before the First President of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, or his delegate, within twenty-four hours of its delivery (CESEDA, Article L. 743-21); the time runs from notification where the person was not present at the hearing. The notice of appeal must state reasons, failing which it is inadmissible. The First President rules within forty-eight hours of being seised.
This time limit cannot be made up: a decision delivered on a Friday evening must be appealed on the Saturday. See our page on the appeal against a detention order.
Finally, release does not make the removal measure disappear. The OQTF remains enforceable and is challenged separately before the administrative court, within forty-eight hours where it is notified in detention (CESEDA, Article L. 614-2, referring to the procedure of Article L. 921-2, the time limit being set by Article R. 921-2-1); that time limit is five days for a rejected asylum seeker in detention and seven days for a transfer decision — see the removal order in detention.
What the firm does
The firm requests disclosure of the prefecture's file and reconstructs the chronology of the consular steps: applications, reminders, interviews, flight bookings. The personal file is updated since the last hearing — accommodation, passport, medical material, family ties. The submissions challenge the case relied on under Article L. 742-4, the absence of a prospect of removal and proportionality, and request house arrest in the alternative. An appeal is lodged within twenty-four hours where the grounds justify it. Maître Gabriel Lassort, a member of the Bordeaux Bar since 2018 and of the Bar's Institut de défense des étrangers, appears before the judicial court, the Court of Appeal and the administrative court of Bordeaux. No outcome can be guaranteed.
Fees for an extension hearing
Amounts as at 9 September 2026
| Service | Fee | What is included |
|---|---|---|
| Each extension hearing, for a client already defended by the firm | 360 € incl. VAT (300 € excl. VAT) | Review of the steps taken, written submissions, hearing, report to the family |
| First hearing, or a file taken on at the time of an extension | 600 € incl. VAT (500 € excl. VAT) | Full review of the procedure, submissions, hearing, oral argument |
| Appeal against the order (client already defended) | 300 € incl. VAT (250 € excl. VAT) | Reasoned notice of appeal within 24 hours, submissions, hearing |
| Prepaid "detention defence" package | 840 € incl. VAT (700 € excl. VAT) | First hearing and any appeal |
| Appeal against the removal order (48 hours in detention, administrative court) | Legal aid | Where the conditions are met; a supplementary fee applies where legal aid is partial |
Same price at weekends and on public holidays. No surcharge. A one-page quote by e-mail or WhatsApp within the hour. The family pays remotely, before the hearing.
Legal references
- CESEDA, Article L. 741-7 — new placements, five placements at most, aggregate duration of 360 days (540 days under the derogating regime).
- CESEDA, Article L. 741-10 — challenge to the detention order before the judge of the judicial court.
- CESEDA, Article L. 614-2 — appeal against the removal order of a person placed in detention, under house arrest or in prison.
- CESEDA, Article L. 921-1 — seven-day time limit for a person under house arrest or in prison, judgment within fifteen days.
- CESEDA, Article R. 921-2-1 — forty-eight hours from notification in detention; five days for a rejected asylum seeker; seven days for a transfer decision.
- Decree no. 2026-456 of 6 June 2026 — the text creating Article R. 921-2-1, in force on 8 June 2026.
- CESEDA, Articles L. 742-1 to L. 742-3 — first extension of twenty-six days.
- CESEDA, Article L. 742-4 — further extensions of thirty days: absolute urgency or threat to public order, obstruction, failure to issue the laissez-passer or issue too late, lack of means of transport.
- CESEDA, Articles L. 742-4 to L. 742-7 — section on "further extensions", derogating regime of 180 then 210 days.
- CESEDA, Article L. 743-13 — house arrest, handing over of the original passport.
- CESEDA, Article L. 743-19 — the person remains at the disposal of the court for ten hours after a decision ordering release.
- CESEDA, Article L. 743-21 — appeal within twenty-four hours before the First President, decision within forty-eight hours.
- CESEDA, Title IV — immigration detention (Articles L. 740-1 to L. 744-17) — full regime.
- Constitutional Council — decision no. 2026-906 DC of 23 July 2026, reservation as to proportionality and the reasonable prospect of removal.
Frequently asked questions about extensions of detention
Durations, grounds for extension, appeal
How long can immigration detention last in 2026?
Ninety-six hours decided by the prefect, a first extension of twenty-six days, then thirty days renewable once: ninety days at most under ordinary law. A derogating regime reserved for exhaustively defined situations goes up to 180 and then 210 days. These are legal maximums, not normal durations.
What happens at the first extension hearing?
The prefecture asks the judge of the judicial court for authorisation to keep the person in detention for twenty-six days (CESEDA, Article L. 742-3). Where the person has also challenged the detention order, both applications are examined at the same hearing and decided by a single order.
On what conditions may the judge order a second or a third extension?
Article L. 742-4 of the CESEDA lists three cases: absolute urgency or a threat to public order; loss or destruction of travel documents, concealment of identity or deliberate obstruction of removal; failure of the consulate to issue the laissez-passer, issue too late to carry out the removal, or the lack of means of transport. Each extension runs for thirty days at most and may be renewed only once.
Who is concerned by detention of 180 or 210 days?
Only the persons covered by Articles L. 742-6 and L. 742-7 of the CESEDA: those sentenced to a ban from French territory for acts of terrorism or removed because of conduct linked to terrorist activities, and those definitively convicted of certain serious crimes or offences punishable by at least five years' imprisonment who represent a genuine, present and particularly serious threat to public order. That classification can be argued before the judge.
Can the judge refuse an extension because the consulate does not reply?
That is one of the main lines of defence. The administration must establish the steps it has taken: the date the consulate was contacted, reminders, interviews, the booking of a flight. In its decision of 23 July 2026, the Constitutional Council recalled that every extension must remain proportionate and presupposes a reasonable prospect of removal. No outcome can be guaranteed.
Can a person be placed in detention several times for the same removal order?
Yes, but not indefinitely. Article L. 741-7 of the CESEDA limits to five the number of placements in detention for carrying out one and the same removal measure and caps the aggregate duration at three hundred and sixty days, raised to five hundred and forty days under the derogating regime. The judge must take account of the detention periods already served in order to check that the deprivation of liberty does not exceed what is strictly necessary.
Can an earlier irregularity be raised at an extension hearing?
No, unless it arose after the previous hearing. Article L. 743-11 of the CESEDA makes inadmissible, of the court's own motion, any irregularity predating a hearing at the end of which the judge has already extended the measure. At extension hearings the debate therefore turns mainly on the steps taken by the administration and on the prospect of removal.
How much does the defence at an extension hearing cost?
The amounts appear in the table on this page: an extension hearing for a client already defended, a file taken on at the time of an extension, the appeal against the order and the prepaid package.
An extension hearing is coming up
Cabinet G. Lassort, 5 cours Pasteur in Bordeaux: +33 5 47 74 93 92.