Listen to the article
In a controversial decision that has sparked political backlash, a federal judge in Louisiana ordered the release of four undocumented immigrants with serious criminal histories from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody earlier this month.
Judge John deGravelles of the Middle District Court of Louisiana, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, granted release to the four defendants on February 6, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The four individuals released include Ibrahim Ali Mohammed, an Ethiopian citizen convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor. Mohammed had been issued a final removal order by an immigration judge on September 5, 2024, after initially being released into the United States during the Biden administration.
Luis Gaston-Sanchez, a Cuban national, was also among those released despite convictions for homicide, assault, resisting an officer, concealing stolen property, and two counts of robbery. An immigration judge had issued a deportation order for Gaston-Sanchez more than two decades ago, on September 24, 2001.
Another Cuban citizen, Ricardo Blanco Chomat, had an extensive criminal record including convictions for homicide, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a firearm, burglary, robbery, larceny, and selling cocaine. Chomat had been under a deportation order since March 27, 2002.
The fourth individual, Francisco Rodriguez-Romero, had previous convictions for homicide and a weapons offense, with a deportation order dating back to May 30, 1995 – nearly three decades ago.
The decision comes amid heightened tensions over immigration enforcement and border security policies. Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin strongly criticized the judge’s decision, stating, “The ramifications will only be the continued rape, murder, assault, and robbery of more American victims. Releasing these monsters is inexcusably reckless.”
McLaughlin emphasized the department’s current approach under the new administration, saying, “We are applying the law as written. If an immigration judge finds an illegal alien has no right to be in this country, we are going to remove them. Period.”
The case highlights the ongoing challenges in the U.S. immigration system, particularly regarding individuals who have been ordered deported but remain in the country for years or even decades. Immigration courts face significant backlogs, and deportation orders can be difficult to execute, especially to countries that may not accept their nationals back or when diplomatic relations are strained.
This release comes during a period of significant policy shifts in immigration enforcement. In September 2025, DHS announced a partnership with Louisiana to expand ICE detention space at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola Prison. The facility, nicknamed the “Louisiana Lockup,” was established specifically to house criminal undocumented immigrants arrested by ICE.
The decision to release these four individuals has become a flashpoint in the broader national debate over immigration policy, sanctuary jurisdictions, and the role of the judiciary in immigration enforcement decisions. Critics argue that such releases endanger public safety, while advocates for immigrant rights often point to due process concerns and constitutional protections that apply to all persons in the United States.
The Middle District Court of Louisiana has not yet responded to requests for comment on Judge deGravelles’ decision, leaving many questions unanswered about the legal reasoning behind the releases and any conditions that may have been imposed.
As federal, state, and local authorities continue to navigate competing priorities in immigration enforcement, cases like this underscore the complex intersection of criminal justice, immigration law, and public safety concerns that define one of the nation’s most contentious policy areas.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
This decision to release undocumented immigrants with serious criminal histories is quite concerning. Allowing dangerous individuals to remain in the US seems unwise and risks public safety. I hope the authorities can appeal this ruling to prevent further releases.
Agreed, public safety should be the top priority. Releasing criminals is a worrying precedent that could have serious consequences.
Releasing undocumented immigrants with criminal histories is a controversial and divisive topic. I’m curious to hear more details about the specific factors the judge considered in making this decision. Without more context, it’s difficult to assess the merits.
While I understand the complexities involved, releasing undocumented immigrants with violent criminal records is highly problematic. Prioritizing their freedom over public wellbeing is a troubling precedent. I hope the authorities can take appropriate steps to address this issue and protect citizens.
While I understand the desire for compassion, releasing immigrants with convictions for sexual exploitation, homicide, and other violent crimes is incredibly risky. The judge’s decision appears to prioritize leniency over public welfare. This is a complex issue without easy solutions.
You raise a fair point. Balancing humanitarian concerns with public safety is challenging, but in cases involving violent offenders, the latter should take precedence.
This news raises serious concerns about the integrity of our immigration enforcement system. Allowing dangerous criminals to avoid deportation seems to undermine the rule of law and public trust. I hope policymakers can find a more balanced approach that respects both humanitarian values and public safety.