Esperanza v. Francis
Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza v. LaDeon Francis, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of New York Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; Pam Bondi in her official capacity as Attorney General
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-08727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rivera Esperanza v. Francis, Judge Abrams found a due-process violation, granted the detention petition, and ordered immediate release.
Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza, who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was ordered released. The respondents were required to certify compliance.
What happened
Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza v. LaDeon Francis involved Rivera Esperanza’s challenge to his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement beginning October 21, 2025. He asked the court for immediate release.
The court found that the government violated Rivera Esperanza’s right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. It granted his petition challenging his detention and ordered his immediate release.
Judge Abrams also ordered the respondents to promptly file proof that they had complied with the order. The opinion said the reasons for the decision would be provided in a later order.
The detailed version
- Esperanza v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-08727
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 12, 2025
Background
On October 21, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court procedure used to challenge unlawful detention, seeking immediate release. The opinion does not provide additional factual details about the detention.
Ruling
The court found that the government violated Rivera Esperanza’s right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. It granted his petition and ordered his immediate release. The opinion states that the reasons supporting the decision would follow in a subsequent order.
Compliance Requirement
The respondents were ordered to certify compliance by promptly filing that certification on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.