Local charges dropped as feds target Venezuelan accused of posing as teen at Ohio high school
An illegal immigrant from Venezuela who was allegedly caught posing as a high school student in Ohio will no longer face local charges and is now being prosecuted in a federal court.
Anthony Labrador-Sierra, 24, was arrested May 21, after he allegedly enrolled in a public high school using fraudulent documents.
On Thursday, the Perrysburg Municipal Court confirmed to Fox News Digital all local charges had been dropped against Labrador-Sierra and that his case had been handed over to federal authorities.
Labrador-Sierra faced a judge in the case and waived his right to a preliminary hearing, according to WTVG.
Venezuelan Man Who Allegedly Posed As Teen Participated In Ohio High School Swimming Events
He will now appear before a grand jury that will oversee his case.
Read On The Fox News App
According to a criminal complaint, Perrysburg Schools reported to the Perrysburg Police Department that they had received information that Labrador-Sierra, a student attending Perrysburg High School, was actually a 24-year-old man who fraudulently enrolled.
Venezuelan Man Arrested After Posing As Teen To Enroll In Ohio High School
Detectives worked with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and discovered Labrador-Sierra is a 24-year-old from Venezuela.
Investigators also learned Labrador-Sierra allegedly used fraudulent documents to enroll in Perrysburg schools and was posing as a 16-year-old student.
Tom Hosler, superintendent of Perrysburg Schools, emphasized the district took swift action once learning Labrador-Sierra's real identity.
"I want to emphasize this: Immediately upon learning that this student may have concealed his identity and misled us, we acted. We met with the student, and he was then not permitted on any school property while we investigated. Very shortly after, we contacted law enforcement," Hosler wrote in a statement on the school district's website.
"Nothing is more important than the safety and security of our students. When we learn of a concerning situation, we act."
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, called the discovery and allegations "shocking."
The senator shared a letter he sent to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel on X, writing, "Unreal. Thanks to Joe Biden's abuse of TPS, a 24-year-old illegal alien was caught on a fake asylum claim pretending to be a teenager at a high school in Ohio."
Moreno called on Noem and Patel to launch investigations immediately, asking them to take any and all lawful measures to enforce federal immigration and criminal laws against Labrador-Sierra.
Hosler added that Labrador-Sierra weaved "a complex tapestry of lies."
The U.S. Attorney's Office of the Northern District of Ohio also noted that Labrador-Sierra is alleged to have submitted false information to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services about his date of birth in applications for Temporary Protective Status (TPS) and Employment Authorization Documents in 2024 and 2025.
DHS told Fox News it has located Labrador-Sierra's information under a different spelling of his name, adding he is a visa overstay who first came to the U.S. in 2019.
Ag Bondi Details Arrest Of Alleged Top Ms-13 Leader Who Reportedly Joined The Vicious Gang In Middle School
Perrysburg Police Chief Pat Jones told FOX 8 News Wednesday that what investigators have learned about the case so far appears to be "just the tip of the iceberg."
The school district released a statement explaining that it shares "the anger and frustration expressed by many in our community."
"This individual is accused of misrepresenting his identity, forging documents, and exploiting systems designed to protect vulnerable youth. While emotions are high, it's important that we remain grounded in facts as this complex situation continues to unfold," the district wrote in an updated statement.
The complaint further alleges that Labrador-Sierra does not have lawful status to purchase, own or possess a gun in the United States.
The agency noted he submitted false information on an Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) form to buy a gun.
He is being held in the Lucas County Jail.
If convicted, Labrador-Sierra would face up to 15 years in prison for possession of a gun by an alien, 10 years in prison for making a false statement during the purchase of a gun and up to five years in prison for using false documents, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
"We recognize that more information may still come to light, and we remain committed to learning everything we can as this situation continues to unfold. We will share additional information as we are able," the school district wrote.
The agency added that the investigation is ongoing and anyone with information about the case is encouraged to call the FBI at 1-800-225-5324.
Fox News' Bill Melugin and Greg Wehner contributed to this report. Original article source: Local charges dropped as feds target Venezuelan accused of posing as teen at Ohio high school
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Perspective: The Supreme Court is in uncharted territory
During recent Supreme Court arguments something unusual happened that should worry every American who believes in the rule of law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the Trump administration's lawyer a question that should never need to be asked: Will you follow our ruling if we decide against you? This extraordinary moment came during arguments over President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. When Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the Justice Department would 'generally' follow court decisions that go against them, he revealed a troubling shift in how this administration views court authority. For the first time in modern memory, Supreme Court justices seem genuinely worried that the executive branch might simply ignore their rulings. This concern didn't come out of nowhere. The Trump administration has repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of court decisions that limit its power, from immigration cases to election disputes. While presidents have always been frustrated by judicial limits, they have historically accepted that court orders must be followed. The current administration's unclear stance toward following court orders represents a major departure from how things have always worked. The irony is obvious. The court's conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees, handed Trump a huge victory in 2024 with Trump v. United States, giving him some immunity from prosecution for presidential acts. Yet rather than creating executive respect for court authority, this decision may have encouraged the very defiance the justices now face. By creating sweeping presidential immunity, the court may have accidentally signaled that traditional limits on executive power can be ignored. The justices' skepticism goes beyond worries about compliance to the administration's broader legal strategy. During arguments on various emergency cases, the court has expressed frustration with how the administration approaches legal process. When the government tried to deport Venezuelan immigrants under an old wartime law with only one day's notice, the justices criticized the rushed timeline. The justices also seemed irritated when the administration argued that lower courts issuing nationwide orders blocking Trump's policies had no authority to provide such broad relief. This creates a constitutional problem. If federal judges cannot issue nationwide orders to block unconstitutional policies, and if the administration reserves the right to ignore court rulings in individual cases, what exactly limits executive power? The administration seems to be systematically challenging the judiciary's traditional tools while refusing to promise they'll follow the results. The birthright citizenship case shows this dynamic perfectly. Trump's executive order says that children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary residents will no longer automatically become citizens, directly contradicting over a century of Supreme Court precedent. When federal judges blocked the order as 'obviously unconstitutional,' the administration came to the court asking to implement it anyway while appeals continue. Justice Elena Kagan captured what's at stake when she told the solicitor general to assume his constitutional interpretation was 'dead wrong.' Without broad court relief, she noted, 'untold numbers of people' could be wrongly denied citizenship for years while cases slowly move through the courts. The practical result would be a massive constitutional violation, enabled by the administration's refusal to accept court authority. Even justices who usually don't like nationwide court orders seemed troubled by the administration's position. Justice Neil Gorsuch, typically a critic of broad judicial relief, questioned whether alternatives like class action lawsuits would be practical given the immediate and ongoing harm from the government's actions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked for specifics about how hospitals would handle newborn citizenship questions if the order takes effect, showing concern about real-world chaos. The court finds itself in uncharted territory. Traditionally, Supreme Court arguments focus on legal interpretation and constitutional principles. Justices assume that whatever they decide will be faithfully carried out by the executive branch, even when presidents disagree with the outcome. Richard Nixon turned over the Watergate tapes despite claiming executive privilege. Even during the most heated periods of conflict between presidents and courts, compliance was never seriously in doubt. Now the justices must consider not just what the law requires, but whether their rulings will matter. When Barrett had to extract a promise that the administration would follow court decisions, she was essentially asking whether the rule of law still works in America. The qualified answer she received suggests it may not. This breakdown in constitutional norms threatens the basic principle that ours is a government of laws, not individuals. The court's authority ultimately rests on public acceptance and executive compliance, not armed enforcement. When an administration openly questions whether it must follow adverse rulings, it undermines the entire system of checks and balances that protects democratic government. The justices seem to recognize this threat, which may explain their increasingly pointed questioning of administration lawyers. By forcing public promises to comply, they may be trying to preserve court authority through moral pressure when legal authority proves insufficient. Whether this strategy works will determine far more than the outcome of current cases. The rule of law depends on mutual respect among the different branches of government. When that breaks down, democracy itself becomes fragile. Americans across the political spectrum should be concerned when any administration treats court orders as optional. Today's defiance of court authority, however justified it may seem to supporters, creates precedent for future abuse by any president. The court's questions about compliance aren't just about Trump — they're about whether constitutional government can survive in an era when institutional norms no longer hold.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Deported Guatemalan man back in U.S. after judge orders Trump administration to return him
A Guatemalan man who was deported by the Trump administration and then was ordered to be returned by a judge because of due process concerns is back in the United States, his attorney said Wednesday. The man, identified in court documents only as O.C.G., landed in the U.S. 'a few hours ago' and contacted his legal team upon arrival, Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Wednesday evening. O.C.G. was expected to be taken into federal custody, Realmuto said. The Trump administration deported O.C.G. to Mexico, where he had previously been held for ransom and raped as he traveled north to the U.S., in February, according to court documents. O.C.G. was put on a bus and sent to Mexico despite a federal judge granting O.C.G. a withholding of removal just two days earlier, court documents show. A withholding of removal is an order that prevents the United States from deporting someone to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened, based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group 'The Court has already found it likely that O.C.G.'s removal lacked due process,' U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy wrote in May, when he ordered the Trump administration to return him. Murphy, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, also wrote in that order that the government didn't put forth any evidence that due process was followed. 'The likelihood that O.C.G. is correct in asserting that his due-process rights were violated, in this Court's view, has long hovered near certainty,' Murphy wrote. O.C.G. is not the only person who has been deported from the United States only to have federal judges then order that the Trump administration return them. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador, and the Trump administration has not yet facilitated his return to the U.S. as ordered by a federal judge. Politico reported in May that another man, Venezuelan national Daniel Lozano-Camargo, was deported to the same prison, and a judge has ordered the U.S. to return him as well. O.C.G. fled Guatemala, where he said he endured persecution and torture, and came to the U.S. to claim asylum in March 2024, but was denied and deported, according to court records. He then tried again and, while in Mexico traveling north to the U.S., he was held for ransom, raped and targeted for being gay, he said in a court declaration. In May 2024, a U.S. asylum officer determined O.C.G. 'had a reasonable fear' to return to Guatemala and was taken into immigration custody to see his case through. In February, an immigration judge determined that O.C.G. would most likely be persecuted if deported to his native Guatemala, and granted him a withholding of removal, court records show. Instead, he was placed on a bus to Mexico a few days later, without notice. Mexico then sent him to Guatemala, where he went into hiding, according to court records, before he was returned to the U.S. on Wednesday. This article was originally published on
.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
What you need to know about Trump's travel ban on Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela
The Trump administration announced in a proclamation on Wednesday that it will ban nationals from Haiti from entering the United States and partially limit Cubans and Venezuelans from coming into the country. Here is a breakdown on how the travel ban will work. What does the proclamation do? The proclamation restricts the entry of nationals from a dozen countries starting on June 9. Nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela are under a partial ban. That means that immigrants and nonimmigrants on tourist, business and student visas are banned under the proclamation. Nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen are subject to a full visa suspension for both immigrants and non-immigrants. The proclamation applies to nationals from the designated countries who are outside the United States and don't have a valid visa on the effective date of the proclamation. However, there are some exceptions for entry under both categories that the proclamation mentions. Why are Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela included? The proclamation noted the high rates of overstays in the United States by visa holders from Haiti, and said the country's lack of a centralized government means it cannot vet if Haitian nationals looking to come to the U.S. are national security threats. On Cuba, the Trump administration said the island is considered a state sponsor of terrorism and that its government does not cooperate on law enforcement matters or take back its own nationals as deportees. It also declared that Venezuela lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents, and does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. The federal government will evaluate in three months, and every six months after that, whether or not to keep or end the bans for each country. What visas from Cuba and Venezuela are banned? Tourism, business and student visas from Cuban and Venezuelan nationals are subject to the suspension. That means non immigrant visas under the categories B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J, What visas from Haiti are affected? All visas from nationals of Haiti as immigrants and nonimmigrants are suspended, though there are some limited exemptions. What visas are exempted under the travel ban? The proclamation notes there are exceptions for visa suspensions. That includes: Green card nationals who have a passport not designated under the travel visas under categories IR-3, IR-4, IH-3 and relatives of U.S. citizens with IR-1/CR-1, IR-2/CR-2, IR-5 visas. Entry intro the U.S. will require clear and convincing proof of identity and family relationships like foreign government officials and members of international organizations with visa categories A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO‑2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or Special Immigrant Immigrant Visas for United States Government visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran. The proclamation also notes the federal government can make case-by-case exceptions for people who serve American national interests. Why did Trump enact the ban? In the proclamation, the Trump administration framed the measure as a way to protect the United States from terrorism and crime, arguing that the designated countries lack adequate screening and vetting procedures. It also claimed that these nations are unable to effectively manage or verify the travel documents of their citizens. Is this the first travel ban issued under Trump? No. In his first term, Trump issued several travel bans for different countries. The first was issued in January 2017 when he imposed a 90-day ban on nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees without a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. In March 2017 a second travel ban was enacted that targeted nationals from six Muslim-majority countries. The third was issued in September 2017, expanding the restrictions and banning nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, Venezuela and North Korea from entering the U.S. In the case of Venezuela, certain government officials and their immediate family members were banned, but not to its nationals in general on tourist or business visas.
