logo
A DACA recipient had permission to leave the country but was deported when he returned

A DACA recipient had permission to leave the country but was deported when he returned

NBC News07-05-2025

Evenezer Cortez Martínez said he's still scared and finds it hard to believe he's back home in Kansas City, Missouri, with his wife and children, after being deported to Mexico by U.S. immigration authorities in March.
'I wake up every now and then saying, 'this is a dream.' When I look at my wife and my children, I feel joy, that peace, but I still have that doubt about whether it's really true that I'm here,' he said, his voice breaking.
Cortez Martínez, a 40-year-old father of three and maintenance worker in the Shawnee Mission School District, was born in the Mexican state of Cuernavaca but came to the U.S. with his family when he was 4. He's one of the hundreds of thousands of people who applied and qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which allows young adults without legal immigration status who were brought to the U.S. as children to work and study without fear of deportation as long as they renew their DACA application every two years.
'I've lived here for 36 years; I grew up here. I have no knowledge of cities in Mexico or anything," he said.
When his grandfather Cornelio Martínez Domínguez fell ill in Mexico, Cortez Martínez began the process of requesting advance parole, a travel permit that allows Dreamers (as DACA beneficiaries are known) to leave and return to the country.
Despite obtaining the travel permit and having valid DACA status, when Cortez Martínez returned to the U.S., immigration authorities at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport prevented him from re-entering the country and deported him to Mexico on March 23.
"They told me I had a deportation order,' Cortez Martínez said, adding that he wasn't allowed to consult a lawyer and was told he had to leave the country right away.
He was allowed to return home to Kansas City after spending two weeks in Mexico but said the experience was traumatic: 'It was very stressful. I thought I had lost everything."
No knowledge of an immigration hearing — or a deportation order
According to a legal complaint filed by Cortez Martínez's attorney and reviewed by Noticias Telemundo, Customs and Border Protection detained Cortez Martínez at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, citing a deportation order issued in June 2024 in absentia, meaning it was issued when he didn't show up to an immigration hearing. But Cortez Martínez and his attorney said he was never notified that he had a hearing — and he also didn't know that a deportation order had later been issued.
'It often happens that people don't receive notifications about things that happen in immigration court,' said Rekha Sharma-Crawford, Martinez's attorney.
When he returned from his visit to Mexico in March, he was deported without being allowed to contact an attorney or hold a hearing before an immigration judge.
In legal documents, CBP claimed that Cortez Martínez's advance parole had been 'issued in error' and that it had the authority to deny re-entry under President Donald Trump's expedited removal process.
The complaint argues that 'an advance parole holder cannot be barred from entering the country without a formal removal hearing before an immigration judge,' among other things.
Sharma-Crawford maintains that Martinez was not hiding from authorities and that all of his DACA renewals (which take place every two years) had been approved by the government without incident. In fact, his current permit is valid until October 2026.
'What we asked of a federal judge was to hold the government accountable and have them recognize the legal documents [Cortez Martínez] had in his possession to allow him to re-enter the United States, which was obviously done, so that part is complete,' said the attorney, who doesn't rule out taking other legal action to resolve the deportation order issued by the government.
'At this point, we've given him time to return to his family, stabilize, and return to work. We'll address those issues in the future,' Sharma-Crawford said.
The Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection did not respond to request for comment from Telemundo News. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) responded in a statement that, because of privacy rules, it does not comment 'on individual immigration cases' and cannot 'share, confirm, or deny information' about individuals.
What is advance parole?
Advance parole can be requested for humanitarian reasons, such as medical treatment abroad, visiting seriously ill relatives or attending funeral services, as was the case with Cortez Martínez. It can also be requested for educational purposes, for courses or academic research or for work-related reasons, such as to complete assignments abroad or attend interviews, conferences or meetings with international clients.
According to immigration experts and to the most recent federal information, USCIS continues to accept and approve advance parole requests for current DACA recipients as long as they qualify.
Regarding traveling back and forth with advance parole, USCIS said in a statement that admission back to the U.S. 'is not guaranteed even if the appropriate documents are present.' The agency warned that any person is subject to 'immigration inspection or examination at a port of entry to determine whether they may be admitted to the country and whether they are eligible for the immigration status for which they are applying.'
Ruby Powers, an immigration attorney in Texas, said that CBP agents can subject Dreamers to secondary inspections upon their return to the country.
'It's discretionary because they have the authority to do so — maybe there's something on their record they didn't know about, and when they travel, authorities find out,' she said. 'There could be a deportation order that was issued when they were children and their parents didn't inform them or were never notified. The government could issue a travel ban to the very country they're going to visit while they're in the middle of a flight. So there are a number of things that could go wrong. ... In the end, it all comes down to whether the immigrant chooses to take those risks.'
Lawyers and immigration experts say that while no specific changes have been announced by the Trump administration regarding the processing of advance parole for those who qualify — such as DACA recipients, TPS holders or those going through the asylum process — they recommend that anyone who qualifies and plans to travel abroad consult with their attorney before doing so.
'The main risk DACA recipients face when they leave the United States on advance parole is that the [DACA] program could be rescinded or terminated by the Trump administration while they are out of the country,' said Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit organization that supports stricter immigration limits.
'In that case,' Jacobs said, 'they may have trouble entering the country. Many DACA recipients could be subject to entry bans of three to 10 years.'
Over the past seven years, DACA has been the subject of multiple legal efforts from the first Trump administration and Republican states to eliminate the program. In January, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against parts of DACA in Texas; there, new applicants will be protected from deportation but will not have work permits or be able to apply for driver's licenses.
Cortez Martínez said that since returning home to Kansas City on April 8, he's focused on returning to work and spending time with his family. Despite the stress of his deportation, he has some advice for DACA recipients who, like him, must travel outside the U.S.
'They need to check with a lawyer because it's not just about leaving, it's about returning,' he said, 'and if they're going through what I was going through, they shouldn't stay silent and seek help. To qualify for DACA, we have to pass [background] checks, have a clean criminal record, and be good people. We pay taxes and support the U.S. economy, so we shouldn't be afraid.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court spares US gun companies from Mexico's lawsuit
Supreme Court spares US gun companies from Mexico's lawsuit

Reuters

time6 hours ago

  • Reuters

Supreme Court spares US gun companies from Mexico's lawsuit

WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson (SWBI.O), opens new tab and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales, harming its government. The companies had argued for the dismissal of Mexico's suit, filed in Boston in 2021, under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these protections. "Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the border. Mexico's lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in Mexico. The suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful products. To avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. Mexico in the lawsuit sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico." Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the lawsuit. Mexico, a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million annually. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 4.

Supreme Court rejects Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun makers
Supreme Court rejects Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun makers

NBC News

time6 hours ago

  • NBC News

Supreme Court rejects Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun makers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the Mexican government's lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers accusing them of aiding and abetting gun violence. The court ruled unanimously in a ruling authored by Justice Elena Kagan that the lawsuit is barred by a 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from legal liability. The 2021 lawsuit accused Smith & Wesson, Colt and other companies of deliberately selling guns to dealers who sell products that are frequently recovered at Mexican crime scenes. The Mexican government accused the companies of 'aiding and abetting' violations of U.S. law, which they had argued means the gun makers were not protected by the federal immunity shield, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Mexico is seeking up to $10 billion in damages. The case at the Supreme Court involved two companies — Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms. Other manufacturers, including Glock and Colt, successfully had claims against them tossed out. A federal judge initially ruled for the manufacturers, but the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case last year, saying the liability shield did not extend to Mexico's specific claims. The case reached the Supreme Court following increased tensions between American and Mexican leaders after the election of President Donald Trump, who has cited drug trafficking and gang violence in Mexico amid his crackdown on illegal immigrants. Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation intended to reduce the flow of guns across the border, which they estimate to total at least 200,000 a year.

New Dallas police chief's three-word warning to migrants who still think it's a sanctuary city
New Dallas police chief's three-word warning to migrants who still think it's a sanctuary city

Daily Mail​

timea day ago

  • Daily Mail​

New Dallas police chief's three-word warning to migrants who still think it's a sanctuary city

The new Dallas police chief Daniel Comeaux issued a blunt three-word warning to illegal immigrants as its 'sanctuary city' status came to an abrupt end. Comeaux delivered a clear message as he took the Texas city's top police job this week, telling potential migrants: 'You're not welcome.' 'Pick another city, don't come to Dallas,' he added. The lawman was named as the city's new police chief in April following a 33-year career including time as a DEA special agent. He beat out interim chief Michael Igo to the top job, after Igo was slammed by Texas officials for allegedly failing to follow President Trump's immigration crackdown. Comeaux issued the message days after Homeland Security didn't include Dallas on its list of jurisdictions that it recognizes as 'sanctuary cities.' A sanctuary city is seen as one that refuses to cooperate with federal immigration laws, and provides legal protections for illegal aliens to stop them being deported. Dallas was previously seen as a haven for illegal migrants in the red state, however the Trump administration has threatened to pull federal funding from cities that refuse to comply with his orders. 'President Trump and (DHS) Secretary Noem have been clear: sanctuary jurisdictions should immediately cease violation of Federal law and cooperate with law enforcement,' a DHS spokesperson told KXAN as Dallas dropped off the list. The shift in Dallas comes as sanctuary city policies were effectively outlawed in Texas in 2017 as the state legislature prohibited any interference with state or federal immigration enforcement. Earlier this year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into Dallas and the city's police department over possible non-compliance with the Trump administration's immigration policies. Paxton named Igo in an open letter released at the time, accusing the former interim Dallas police chief of telling his police department not to assist in detaining illegal immigrants. 'The law is not optional,' Paxton said at the time. 'Local governments do not have the authority to disregard state and federal immigration laws. 'The people of Texas expect law enforcement agencies to uphold public safety, not to implement sanctuary policies that put our communities at risk.' Igo said at the time that his department would not stop anyone for the sole reason of checking their immigration status, but denied refusing to work with federal law enforcement, per KERA News. It comes as Trump stepped up his deportations targets this week by telling immigration officials to conduct 3,000 arrests every day in an ambitious effort to ramp up his deportation agenda. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said the new goal is only temporary and the number of daily arrests expected under the Trump administration will continue to rise. 'Under President Trump's leadership, we are looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day,' Miller told Fox News' Sean Hannity. Trump's border czar Tom Homan backed the ambitious new benchmark on Thursday morning, insisting: ' We've gotta increase these arrests and removals.' 'The numbers are good, but I'm not satisfied. I haven't been satisfied all year long.' During Trump's first 100 days back in office, ICE officials arrested 66,463 illegal immigrants. More than 65,000 illegal immigrants were deported.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store