Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and panne KX v. Francis
Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and panne KX 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 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
- 1
In Villarreal Obregon and panne KX v. Francis, Judge Failla granted the petition and ordered the government to return and release the petitioners.
Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and her daughter, panne KX, were ordered released from custody after being returned to the Southern District of New York. The respondent immigration officials and agencies were required to carry out the transfer and release.
What happened
In Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and panne KX v. Ladeon Francis, Ms. Villarreal Obregon and her daughter challenged their detention and transfer.
The court ordered the respondents, with help from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to transport the petitioners back to the Southern District of New York by November 24, 2025, and release them immediately after the transfer.
Judge Katherine Failla’s judgment limited the restraints on the petitioners’ liberty to those that existed before their re-detention on “12, 2025,” and stated that the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and panne KX v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-09465
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 24, 2025
Background
Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and her daughter, identified as panne KX, were the petitioners. The respondents were immigration-enforcement and federal government officials and agencies. The judgment does not describe the underlying petition in detail, but it orders relief concerning the petitioners’ custody and transfer.
Court’s Action
The court granted the petition. It did so for the reasons stated in the court’s November 20, 2025 order and on the record at an October 22, 2025 conference in a related matter. The judgment does not repeat that reasoning.
The respondents were ordered, with the help of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to transport the petitioners back to the Southern District of New York by November 24, 2025. Immediately after the transfer, the respondents were ordered to release the petitioners from custody.
Additional Restriction and Disposition
The respondents could impose only the restraints on the petitioners’ liberty that existed before their re-detention on “12, 2025,” as written in the judgment. The court stated that the case was closed. The judgment was dated November 24, 2025, and the document was entered by the clerk of court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.