A federal appeals court cleared the way on Friday for Texas to act on an expansive 2023 state law that empowers state and local police officers to arrest migrants who cross illegally from Mexico, the latest development in a long-running case that could have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement in the United States. In a 10-to-7 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the law, known as [Senate Bill 4](https://www.nytimes.com/article/texas-border-law-challenge-explainer.html), and lifted a [temporary injunction](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/us/texas-border-law-court-injunction.html) that had been in place since 2024. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court had [briefly allowed](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/us/supreme-court-texas-immigration.html) the law to go into effect and returned the case to the 5th Circuit, which quickly put the law on hold. In July 2025, a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit upheld the 2024 injunction. Texas has since continued to press its case and, on Friday, a majority of the full 5th Circuit sided with the state and removed the injunction. The court, however, did not address the underlying question of whether the law unconstitutionally infringes on the federal government’s power to set and enforce immigration law. The ruling does not take effect until May 15, and the challengers, which include civil rights and immigrants’ groups and the El Paso County government, [have indicated](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/fifth-circuit-rules-challenge-to-extreme-texas-immigration-law-must-be-dismissed-on-procedural-grounds#:~:text=The%20full%20court%20did%20not,at%20least%20until%20that%20date.) that they intend to appeal the decision. “This fight is far from over,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, in a statement. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2026%2F04%2F25%2Fus%2Ftexas-mexico-border-arrest-deport-immigration.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2026%2F04%2F25%2Fus%2Ftexas-mexico-border-arrest-deport-immigration.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2026%2F04%2F25%2Fus%2Ftexas-mexico-border-arrest-deport-immigration.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2026%2F04%2F25%2Fus%2Ftexas-mexico-border-arrest-deport-immigration.html).

A federal judge in New York has banned US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ([ICE](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ice-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement)) agents from arresting immigrants in or around three federal courthouses in lower Manhattan, where vigorous confrontations have played out since the start of [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump)’s second presidency. Under an order issued on Monday by P Kevin Castel, a US district judge, federal agents are no longer allowed to make arrests of immigrants except under exceptional circumstances at the sites where hearings are held before immigration judges. Castel’s ruling came in response to a [lawsuit](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/complaint-immigration-court-arrests-nyc.pdf) brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY and other groups. The ACLU’s Amy Belsher called the ruling “an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings”. Castel said that his ruling applied to immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza and two other Manhattan locations – 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway. The ruling does not apply nationwide. In a [15-page order](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/ice-ruling-immigration-court-arrests.pdf), Castel said that while there was “a strong governmental interest in enforcing immigration laws”, there also was a serious interest in letting individuals attend removal proceedings and pursue asylum claims before a judge “without fear of arrest”. Castel also noted that federal agents still can detain individuals at locations away from immigration courts and also can make arrests at immigration courthouses when there is a serious threat to public safety. The lower Manhattan federal buildings, including 26 Federal Plaza where ICE maintains an office, have been the site of immigrants’ arrests, related protests and standoffs between agents and demonstrators which have included the detention of local elected officials. Castel said the boundaries set out in federal policy in April 2021 regarding enforcement actions inside courthouses can remain in effect. He also said that a court case before him was likely to result in a ruling that it was “arbitrary and capricious” for the second Trump administration to withdraw that policy. The judge had initially cleared the way for arrests at Manhattan immigration courts in September. But he said that government attorneys had recently reversed their position on the matter, saying they have learned that 2025 policies regarding arrests in and around courthouses set by the Trump administration did not apply to immigration courts after all. He said the government’s new position meant it was necessary to “correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice”. Castel wrote that federal prosecutors apologized to him in March for a “material mistaken statement of fact that the government made to the court”. The Trump administration blamed the mistake on “agency attorney error”, withdrawing “portions of four briefs” as well as “statements” made during oral argument. Castel’s ruling on Monday comes after there had been highly publicized tensions between protesters and federal immigration authorities in cities such as Los Angeles and Minneapolis. The latter city saw widespread street protests after federal agents shot the 37-year-old US citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to death in separate cases in January. In the wake of those killings, polling [revealed](https://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/the-actions-of-ice-february-2026/) most Americans believed immigration agents had gone too far with their tactics. And, with midterm elections looming in the fall, the Trump administration made agency leadership changes. African Communities Together and the Door, groups involved in the legal action yielding Castel’s ruling on Monday, had argued that making arrests at federal immigration locations was a “profoundly unfair” practice that “undermined the rule of law and the integrity of immigration courts”. The Door’s Beth Baltimore said that the judge’s decision “brings us hope” and said the group “continues to work tirelessly to support … members who were terrified to go to their required court appearances”.

Attorneys for [Mahmoud Khalil](http://theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/sep/08/mahmoud-khalil-update-release-detention-trump), the former Columbia University student who last year became the face of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestine speech, will ask the US supreme court to intervene after a federal appeals court opened the door for the government to once again detain and ultimately deport him. On Friday, the third circuit court of appeals upheld a [January ruling](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/15/appeals-court-mahmoud-khalil-columbia-activist) by a three-judge panel, which had reversed a lower-court decision ordering Khalil’s [release on bail](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/20/mahmoud-khalil-release-federal-judge) last June. The ruling marks the latest chapter in Khalil’s months-long challenge of the government’s campaign against him. The appeals court’s decision marks a significant setback for him, but his lawyers insist he cannot be deported – for now. “We hope the supreme court will recognize how dangerous the third circuit’s decision was, not just for Mahmoud but for other non-citizens the administration has its vengeful sights upon,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and part of Khalil’s legal team. “That ruling greenlights holding someone in prolonged, brutal detention conditions without access to meaningful judicial review in order to punish them and deter others from dissenting from US foreign policy.” The third circuit judges were split on the decision – with six voting against and five in favor of Khalil’s request to reverse the earlier ruling. In a dissenting opinion, three of the judges who voted against argued that the majority’s ruling “ignores canons”, “strains precedent” and “imperils the civil liberties of \[Khalil\] and similarly situated noncitizens”. Khalil’s attorneys said that they planned to ask the court to pause the decision’s implementation so they can bring the matter to the [US supreme court](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-supreme-court). Khalil is also fighting the government’s attempt to remove him in a separate legal case moving through the immigration court system. Earlier this month, his legal team filed a motion asking an immigration appeals court to reopen and throw out that case after evidence emerged that the Trump administration had improperly [fast-tracked it](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/11/mahmoud-khalil-doj-case-fast-tracked) and tried to predetermine its outcome. Still, Friday’s ruling is a notable loss for Khalil and sets a dangerous precedent for others seeking to challenge their detention in federal court at a time when the Trump administration has politicized the immigration court system in unprecedented ways. “What the administration wants to do is litigate his removability in the immigration court process – what I call the president’s courts,” said Azmy. “It’s a total sham process that’s designed to carry out their plan to deport him.” Khalil, a US permanent resident who is married to a US citizen, was detained in his Columbia University housing in March 2025 – the first of several foreign students and scholars the administration targeted over their pro-Palestine advocacy. He had been a lead negotiator between the university and student protesters during the spring 2024 encampments. Khalil has remained defiant throughout the ordeal and since being released last year has become a far more prominent advocate. “The administration wants to arrest, detain and deport me to intimidate everyone speaking out for Palestine across this country, and they are willing to violate longstanding US rules and procedures to do it,” he said [recently](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/after-new-evidence-of-doj-misconduct-mahmoud-khalil-calls-on-board-of-immigration-appeals-to-terminate-case). “But no lies, corruption, or ideological persecution will stop me from advocating for Palestine and for everyone’s right to free speech.” Khalil [missed the birth](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/21/mahmoud-khalil-ice-noor-abdalla-birth) of his first son while in detention in an Immigrationa nd Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Louisiana last year. His lawyers argued that he would suffer “irreparable harm” if forced to remain in detention while his immigration case proceeded – and a federal court ultimately sided with him and found that he was likely to succeed in his claim that the government’s actions had been unconstitutional. An appeals court struck down that decision in January after it concluded that the federal judge who ordered his release did not have jurisdiction over the case, which it said needed to remain in the immigration court system. Attorneys for Khalil warn that the panel’s decision effectively blocks anyone in immigration proceedings from challenging their detention on first amendment grounds until those proceedings have run their course – “no matter how long they may take or how unconstitutional the basis for their detention”, they wrote in a recent [statement](https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/mahmoud-khalil-asks-full-appeals-court-reconsider-decision-would). The judges in the dissent agreed. “The Judiciary ‘serves as an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances’ protecting civil liberties and checking legislative and executive discretion,” they wrote. “We cannot fulfill that role if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.” The Trump administration originally maintained that Khalil – as well as [other foreign scholars](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/17/trump-effort-deport-pro-palestinian-students) it detained over their pro-Palestine advocacy – posed a threat to the government’s foreign policy objectives in fighting antisemitism, citing a little-used immigration statute from the McCarthy era. So far, that claim has not been tested in court, with the government choosing to fight Khalil’s appeal on jurisdictional grounds instead. Government lawyers later argued that Khalil’s deportation would be justified on the grounds that he omitted details in his green card application – claims his lawyers have vehemently rejected. Courts have expressed reservations over the government’s argument and last fall, a federal judge in Boston ruled in a [blistering opinion](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/30/trump-administration-immigration-palestine) in a [related case](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/07/trial-trump-ideological-deportation-policy-pro-palestinian-students) that the detentions of pro-Palestinian students had been unconstitutional and designed to chill speech. During that [trial](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/22/key-takeaways-trial-trump-administrations-ideological-deportation-policy), immigration officials involved in the detentions revealed that government officials had relied on dossiers compiled by far-right, pro-Israel groups to target those students. While the administration, and the president himself, called Khalil a “Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student” and a “terrorist sympathizer”, he has been a nuanced voice in his criticism of Israel and has repeatedly spoken out against antisemitism, saying it has “no place” in the Palestine solidarity movement. “I grew up in a community that valued human rights and valued principles beyond religion, beyond race,” he said in a recent interview with the Jewish publication [the Forward](https://forward.com/news/817276/mahmoud-khalil-hamas-zionism-antisemitism-israel/). ““I know it might sound like a very ideal utopia, but this is what we should aspire for: to get a place where there’s no more conflict, no more killing in that place and it’s open to anyone who wants to call it their home or their Holy Land.”

 Immigration courts [inside the Justice Department](https://www.npr.org/2026/03/20/nx-s1-5707535/trump-immigration-detention-appeals-board-deportation) are drastically accelerating immigrants' hearings and bunch them together with the goal of issuing more deportation orders. The new and unprecedented tactic was shared with NPR by immigration attorneys and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade association that tracks trends in these courts. Immigrants are now being scheduled for massive master calendar hearings — or "mega masters" — that include 100 or more people at a time. That's up from two or three dozen people at a time that had been typical before for a first hearing. For many immigrants, this is their first appearance in court to try to make their case to be able to stay in the U.S. Attorneys say these new hearings largely target people without lawyers representing them. Those who show up late, or not at all, are receiving removal orders, further truncating the already-limited due process available to immigrants. "The major concern is that \[since\] this is going to be a group of people without attorneys, that they're not going to have gotten proper notice," said Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, practicing policy counsel at AILA, adding that courts often lack enough seats for hearings with so many people at once. "So it's almost like they are being designed to increase" how many people get deportation orders automatically, she said. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that runs the immigration courts at DOJ, did not respond to a request for comment on this new strategy. Lawyers said the practice had started in the Chicago, Boston and Chelmsford, Mass., courts and is soon to start in the Dallas Immigration Court. The effort comes as President Trump seeks to deport a million people a year — much higher [than the 600,000 people](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/10/thanks-president-trump-and-secretary-noem-more-25-million-illegal-aliens-left-us) the administration deported in 2025. Trump has also complained about the backlogs of millions of cases inside immigration courts, pointing to courts [as an obstacle](https://www.npr.org/2025/04/29/g-s1-63187/trump-courts-immigration-judges-due-process) to rapid deportation. ### No notice, overwhelmed courthouses When someone does not appear for their scheduled hearing, even by mistake, the judge can issue an official removal order that allows immigration officers to detain and deport the person. That's been happening [a lot more often](https://www.npr.org/2025/12/22/nx-s1-5583971/trump-ice-immigration-arrests-deportation-no-shows) under this Trump administration, an NPR analysis found last year, with fewer people showing up in court for fear of being detained. Dojaquez-Torres and other immigration attorneys who spoke to NPR worry that immigrants, especially those without a lawyer, may not know that their hearing dates had been rescheduled for a sooner date, leaving them vulnerable to deportation. She added that in some cases, little to no notice is being issued by the government by mail or electronically to immigrants or their lawyers, meaning those not regularly checking their online accounts could miss any changes. These "mega masters" are made up of people whose original hearings were scheduled for 2027, 2028 or 2029. "They're anticipating that the majority will not show up and they'll just be able to say that they completed X number of cases because they'll be in absentia orders of removal," said one Texas-based immigration attorney. The attorney spoke to NPR on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals for their ability to practice in Texas courts. The attorney noted that if people do show up to the massive hearings, it could overwhelm court staff and judges, and overcrowd courtrooms. In some cases, attorneys said their clients may benefit from cases getting scheduled sooner, even if it increases pressure and creates sudden legal filing deadlines. However, most people in immigration court do not have a lawyer and are unlikely to see these benefits. ### DOJ begins to staff up to take on cases This is not the first time the agency has pushed to streamline cases under Trump's second term. EOIR has also moved to quickly prioritize cases of people from specific nationalities including [Somalis](https://www.npr.org/2026/02/09/nx-s1-5707217/somali-asylum-cases-rescheduled), Syrians and Iranians. And, cases of juvenile immigrants are also being pushed up, their lawyers say. The strategy of hosting mega masters comes as the DOJ announced its largest-ever class of new immigration judges. Last week, the agency onboarded [77 judges and 5 temporary military lawyers](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/eoir-announces-77-immigration-judges-and-5-temporary-immigration-judges) serving as judges. The agency has boasted hiring 153 immigration judges this fiscal year, [the most in any year](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/eoir-announces-77-immigration-judges-and-5-temporary-immigration-judges). "The Trump administration is committed to reestablishing an immigration judge corps that is dedicated to restoring the rule to the law in our nation's immigration system," Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. The rapid hirings come after EOIR lost about a quarter of its [immigration judges](https://www.npr.org/2026/02/23/g-s1-110911/trump-immigration-judges-dismissals-numbers) last year, with more than 100 of them fired. And even as more judges were hired last week, several more were fired the same day, including in courts in New York and California. An NPR analysis last year found that judges with [backgrounds in representing immigrant](https://www.npr.org/2025/11/06/g-s1-96437/trump-immigration-judges-fired) clients were more likely to be fired compared to those who only had prior experience working at the Department of Homeland Security.

An immigration judge in Charlotte, [North Carolina](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/northcarolina), recently ordered the deportation of a young man who was killed in 2024, citing his failure to appear in court. Judge Amy Lee ordered the removal of Levi Mendez-Maldonado in absentia on 21 May. Mendez-Maldonado, originally from Honduras, came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor at age 17 and was [murdered in a shooting](https://www.charlottenc.gov/cmpd/News-Information/Newsroom/Case-Update-Homicide-Investigation-in-the-Westover-Division-3) in November 2024. Becca O’Neill, a lawyer with the Carolina Migrant Network, was preparing to represent Mendez-Maldonado, a young father and mechanic, in his asylum case and deportation defense before his death. In December 2024, she received notice of a preliminary hearing for Mendez-Maldonado scheduled on 21 May 2026. Like all immigrants detained and processed at the border, he was immediately put into deportation proceedings upon arrival. This court date would have been an initial step in a process that takes years. O’Neill attended the 21 May meeting on his behalf. At the beginning of the hearing, she notified Lee of her client’s death. O’Neill presented the court with Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department (CMPD) records of Mendez-Maldonado’s death. According to O’Neill, Lee found the CMPD records to be insufficient proof of death, even though a death certificate was filed in late 2024. The Guardian has requested, but not received, a copy of the court recording. Lee’s office could not be reached for comment. The judge and the federal prosecutor continued with the hearing as planned without acknowledging the reason for Mendez-Maldonado’s absence, said O’Neill. “The whole thing probably took maybe five minutes. The attorney acted like we were talking about the weather. The judge didn’t take a moment to reorient herself after hearing he was dead.” The court order states: “Despite the written notification provided, Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, and no exceptional circumstances were shown for the failure to appear. Therefore, the immigration court conducted the hearing in absentia.” There is no mention of his death in the judge’s order, obtained by the Guardian. Flabbergasted, O’Neill did not contest the final order. “This is the banality of evil. All of this is so normalized and bizarre. Just a boilerplate order: he didn’t come to court, he didn’t demonstrate good cause. Well, he’s dead. And you know that because you saw a government website saying that he’s dead.” Stefanía Arteaga, the founder and executive director of Carolina Migrant Network, said: “It shows that even after death, you can’t escape deportation.” > It shows that even after death, you can’t escape deportation Stefanía Arteaga, Carolina Migrant Network Advocates say the judge’s decision and the omission of Mendez-Maldonado’s death in official court records further strip dignity from immigrant communities terrorized during federal authorities’ [recent](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/20/charlotte-north-carolina-ice-raids) [Operation Charlotte’s Web](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/17/charlotte-nc-immigration-raids-business). “The system is designed to dehumanize noncitizens, especially if the noncitizens are Black or not white. You can see what happened in Charlotte last year, the [violence](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/17/charlotte-protests-arrests-immigration) [and](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/18/raleigh-north-carolina-immigration-raids-ice) [active](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/17/border-agents-charlotte-immigration-explainer) [targeting](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/16/charlotte-north-carolina-immigration-crackdown) of these communities,” said O’Neill. “The thing is: the entire system is like that. It doesn’t have to just be \[Customs and Border Protection\] in tactical gear outside of somebody’s home. It’s happening in the courts. These judges and attorneys don’t care.” The Charlotte immigration court handles cases from North and South Carolina. In 2025, it granted legal relief in roughly 1% of cases. The court currently has a backlog of [about 129,000 pending cases](https://www.wunc.org/2026-05-11/charlotte-immigration-judges-ordered-more-than-7-000-removals-from-january-to-april), the ninth-largest in the country. “I just believe this is a numbers game,” Arteaga said. “There’s an emphasis on results rather than fully understanding the scope of the situation.” [](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/03/north-carolina-judge-deport-teen-murder-victim#img-2) Protesters gather at First Ward Park at a rally to support the immigrant community in Charlotte, North Carolina, on 15 November 2025. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images From 2020 to 2025, Lee denied nearly 90% of her 550 asylum cases in Charlotte. Her statistics locate her somewhere in the middle of her peers in the same court, according to [Trac Immigration](https://tracreports.org/immigration/reports/judgereports/). O’Neill describes Lee as tough. Earlier this year, Lee ordered one of her clients removed to Ecuador, Guatemala or Honduras. “My client is Mexican,” she said. The government currently permits [third-country asylum agreements](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/28/trump-deportations-asylum), [deporting](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/02/uganda-receives-first-us-deportation-flight-under-third-country-agreement) [people](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/14/un-equatorial-guinea-us-deportees) to foreign countries with which they have few or no ties. O’Neill filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that her client had never been to any of those countries. She claimed Lee told her to “stop talking” and wouldn’t budge on her decision. “She does not indulge” any differing feedback. Paul Hunker, a Dallas-based former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) counsel turned immigration lawyer, said that the judge could have delayed her decision. [Federal regulation 239.2](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-239/section-239.2) permits the cancellation of a notice to appear in immigration court for several reasons, including death. Hunker, who was chief counsel for ICE in [Texas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/texas) from 2003 to 2024, noted that the Biden administration saw record numbers of immigrants processed at the border. But he believes that the second Trump administration gives the agencies “marching orders” to deny as many immigrants relief as possible. “The administration is putting pressure on ICE attorneys to achieve outcomes \[and\] never agree to a bond,” he said. “If a person is not a danger to the community, they should be released on a bond. Under the first Trump administration, we would reopen and desist a case. And then an immigrant can go on their merry way, and that’s great. But now ICE won’t do that.” Both O’Neill and Arteaga say they never encountered a deportation order for a deceased immigrant in more than 20 years working in North Carolina. One such case occurred in 2024 in California, when 88-year-old Jose Mario Rodriguez Grimaldi [faced](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-07/immigration-sought-to-deport-88-year-old-but-he-already-died) deportation proceedings three years after he died. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Department of Homeland Security sent multiple notices to the residence he shared with his daughter. The publication also confirmed several similar cases with at least three more immigration lawyers. Mendez-Maldonado had gone through the appropriate channels to apply for legal status. Since he entered the country alone as a 17-year-old, he needed a US sponsor in order to be released and given a chance to apply for asylum. His older brother sponsored him and acted as his legal guardian for a year. Mendez-Maldonado entered through Texas, where his first attorney helped him apply for asylum in May 2024, after he turned 18. Then he moved to [North Carolina](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/northcarolina), where O’Neill took over his case. At the time of his death, his asylum case was still pending. O’Neill said his goals were to remain in the US and obtain a green card. > This is the banality of evil. All of this is so normalized and bizarre Becca O’Neill, Mendez-Maldonado’s lawyer The lengthy process in navigating the immigration system is even more challenging in cases with children. “Levi’s rare in that he had legal representation and free representation,” said O’Neill. Most young people do not. “I’ve had clients who enter as unaccompanied minors as young as four years old who end up with removal orders because they don’t go to court. How is a four-year-old going to know when their hearing date is? It’s up to their sponsors, who are often undocumented themselves.” O’Neill had lost contact with Mendez-Maldonado and called him for months in 2025 to share good news: his work permit had been approved. Finally, a colleague told her that he had died in a shooting. The May hearing would have been Mendez-Maldonado’s first appearance at the Charlotte immigration court, a chance to convince the US government that he deserved to stay. CMPD’s homicide unit confirmed to the Guardian that the investigation into his death is still open, but did not provide further details.