Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2025

Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. v. Francis

Full caption

Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. v. Ladeon Francis, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, New York Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; and Executive Office for Immigration Review

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:25-cv-09465
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ImmigrationHabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Villarreal Obregon v. Francis, Judge Failla ordered briefing and temporary protections while considering a detention petition.

Who this affects

Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. are protected from removal and, subject to the order’s geographic limits, transfer while the petition proceeds. The respondent government must file a response, produce the petitioners at the scheduled conference, and comply with the removal and transfer restrictions.

What happened

Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. v. Ladeon Francis concerns a petition challenging immigration detention. Villarreal Obregon and her 14-year-old daughter, F.S.V.V., filed the petition through Eduardo Fabian Arias, identified as a person acting on their behalf.

The court ordered the government to respond by November 19, 2025, and allowed the petitioners to reply by November 26. It scheduled a December 2 conference and ordered the respondents to bring the petitioners to that hearing. The court also barred the petitioners’ removal from the United States unless it gives permission and limited transfers to facilities in the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, or District of New Jersey.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued this scheduling and protection order; it does not decide whether the petitioners’ detention is unlawful.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-09465
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Nov. 17, 2025

Background

Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and her 14-year-old daughter, F.S.V.V., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from immigration detention. Eduardo Fabian Arias filed the petition on their behalf as a person acting for them in the case. The opinion states that the petition was filed on November 12, 2025.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered the government to file an opposition explaining why the petition should not be granted by November 19, 2025. The petitioners may file a reply by November 26, 2025. The parties must appear for a conference about the petition on December 2, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York. The respondents must produce the petitioners at that hearing.

The court ordered that the petitioners must not be removed from the United States unless the court enters an order allowing removal. It also ordered that “Petitioner” must not be transferred except to a facility within the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey. The order explains that this restriction protects participation in further proceedings and access to legal counsel. The clerk was directed to notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and mail a copy of the order to the petitioners’ next friend.

Disposition and Significance

Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued an order setting briefing and a conference and preserving the petitioners’ ability to pursue the case while it proceeds. The opinion does not decide the merits of the immigration-detention petition or state whether the petitioners are entitled to release.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.