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
- 2
In Villarreal Obregon v. Francis, Judge Failla ordered immigration officials not to re-detain the petitioners or deny them bond on specified grounds.
Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. were released from detention and received additional protections against re-detention and specified bond-related actions by the immigration authorities named as respondents.
What happened
In Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. v. Francis, the court had previously granted the petitioners’ request for a court order challenging their immigration detention and ordered their release. The petitioners, Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and her 14-year-old daughter, F.S.V.V., later confirmed that they had been released.
The court then added protections requested by the petitioners. It barred the respondents from re-detaining them without properly exercising discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and, unless another court order allowed it, barred denying them bond on the ground that detention was required under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). If they were granted bond, the respondents also could not use an automatic-stay rule to keep them detained.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the December 2, 2025 order supplementing the earlier release order with these directives.
The detailed version
- Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and F.S.V.V. v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-09465
- Katherine Failla
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
On November 20, 2025, the court granted Rocio Gladys Villarreal Obregon and her 14-year-old daughter, F.S.V.V., a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a request for judicial review of their detention. The court ordered the respondents to release them, subject only to the restraints on their liberty that existed before their re-detention, and to certify compliance.
The petitioners certified on November 24, 2025, that they had been released. On November 26, they asked the court to add protections designed to prevent similar violations of their rights in the future.
Additional relief
The court supplemented its earlier order with three directives:
- The respondents were enjoined, meaning ordered not to, re-detain the petitioners without a valid exercise of discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- Unless the court issued another order, the respondents were enjoined from denying the petitioners bond in a later proceeding on the ground that they had to be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
- If the petitioners were granted bond, the respondents were enjoined from invoking the automatic-stay provision in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2).
Disposition
The order supplements the November 20, 2025 habeas order with the listed detention and bond restrictions. The opinion does not state that the court changed its earlier release directive; it states that the petitioners had been released and that the court was adding further relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.