Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. v. Francis
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
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-09465
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Villarreal Obregon v. Francis, Judge Failla directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for detained petitioners and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V., who were detained and seeking relief from immigration detention; the order also directed the Clerk of Court to seek a volunteer lawyer for them.
What happened
Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and her 14-year-old daughter, F.S.V.V., filed a petition challenging their immigration detention. Eduardo Fabian Arias filed it on their behalf as a Next Friend, a person who brings a case for someone unable to do so themselves.
The court found that the factors for requesting volunteer legal representation favored the petitioners. Their incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition significantly limited their ability to present the case and investigate facts. The court therefore directed the clerk to try to find a volunteer lawyer, but explained that no lawyer was required to accept the case and that another lawyer might not be found.
Judge Katherine Failla also directed that the order be mailed to the petitioners’ Next Friend. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying detention petition.
The detailed version
- Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-09465
- Katherine Failla
- 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 Next Friend on November 12, 2025.
Request for Volunteer Counsel
The court considered the factors identified in Hodge v. Police Officers for deciding whether to request pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer who represents a party without charging that party. Those factors include the apparent merit of the claim, the need for factual investigation, whether credibility issues are involved, the party’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues.
The court found that these factors favored seeking volunteer counsel. In particular, it found that the petitioners’ incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition significantly limited their ability to present their case and conduct related factual investigation. The court stated that representation could produce a quicker and fairer result by sharpening the issues.
Order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel for the petitioners. It explained that the court lacks authority to require an attorney to represent them and can only request that an attorney volunteer. The court also stated that there was no guarantee that an attorney would accept the case or that another attorney would be found if a volunteer declined. The petitioners were therefore to be prepared to continue without a lawyer. If they had already obtained counsel or did not want the court to seek volunteers, they were instructed to notify the court promptly.
The clerk was also directed to send a copy of the order by regular mail to the petitioners’ Next Friend. The court stated that the Next Friend could receive court documents by email by completing a consent form.
Appeal-Fee Determination
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status—permission to appeal without paying the required fees—for purposes of an appeal.
The order addressed counsel and appeal-fee issues. It did not decide the merits of the petitioners’ challenge to their immigration detention.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.