Illegal immigrant who enrolled in Ohio high school claiming to be a teenager hit with federal gun charges
The grand jury returned the indictment this week, charging Labrador Sierra with possession of a firearm by an alien who is in the U.S. unlawfully, making a false statement while purchasing a firearm, and making or using false documents, the DOJ said in a news release.
The indictment alleges that Labrador Sierra submitted a false date of birth to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on federal applications to acquire Temporary Protective Status and Employment Authorization Documents in 2024 and 2025.
The suspect also allegedly possessed a Taurus G3C 9mm semiautomatic pistol, which he was not allowed to have, since he was in the U.S. illegally, and the DOJ alleges that Labrador Sierra submitted false information to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to purchase the firearm.
He allegedly provided false statements on a federal form to purchase the firearm and made statements to deceive the licensed firearms dealer at the point of sale. For example, the indictment alleges that Labrador Sierra said he was not a U.S. citizen or national; was not illegally or unlawfully in the U.S.; and was not an alien who entered the U.S. under a non-immigrant visa.
If Labrador Sierra is convicted, he could face up to 15 years in prison for possessing a firearm as an illegal alien. He could also face 10 years in prison for making a false statement while purchasing a firearm and up to five years in prison for making or using false documents or writings.
Earlier, court documents showed that Labrador Sierra had been charged with forgery after he allegedly enrolled in a public high school using fraudulent documents.
The Perrysburg Police Department said last month that it had been contacted by the Perrysburg Local Schools about possible fraudulent activity involving one of its students.
A fraud case was ultimately established and handed over to the department's detectives for further investigation.
Detectives worked with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and it was discovered that Labrador was a 24-year-old from Venezuela.
Investigators also learned that Labrador Sierra had used fraudulent documents to enroll in Perrysburg Schools and was posing as a 16-year-old student.
Perrysburg School officials said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital that Labrador Sierra had been enrolled at Perrysburg High School under the name and age of a 16-year-old unaccompanied minor on Jan. 11, 2024, in accordance with federal and state requirements for enrolling students experiencing homelessness or without a legal guardian.
Between Jan. 11, 2024, and May 14, 2025, the school said, Labrador Sierra obtained documentation and support, further complicating the situation. For instance, he obtained a state-issued driver's license, social security number and Temporary Protective Status (TPS) from U.S. Immigration.
The school also said that Labrador had completed an application for a visa with help from Advocating Opportunities, which provides free legal assistance.
The Wood County Juvenile Court granted guardianship of Labrador Sierra to a Perrysburg family.
School officials said the guardians had contacted the school on May 14 to report that they had received information indicating Labrador Sierra was not a minor, but instead a 24-year-old man.
Labrador Sierra reportedly denied the allegation when district administrators met with him on May 15.
The school district issued a statement shortly after his arrest, noting that Labrador Sierra had been a member of the junior varsity soccer and swim teams.
Labrador Sierra was ultimately taken into custody during a traffic stop on Interstate 75 on Tuesday afternoon.
DHS told Fox News they have located Labrador Sierra's information under a different spelling of his name. They added that Labrador Sierra is a visa overstay who first came to the U.S. in 2019.
DHS also confirmed that Labrador Sierra has received TPS.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Raskin: Maxwell prison move ‘speaks to the irregularity of the process'
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Wednesday questioned disgraced socialite Ghislaine Maxwell's recent prison transfer, as lawmakers press the Trump administration to release more files related to its probe of the late Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case. Maxwell, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 years as Epstein's co-conspirator, was quietly transferred from a Florida prison to a lower-security prison camp in Texas earlier this month, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The move comes as she is appealing her case to the administration and Supreme Court. 'It was practically instantaneous. And of course, that then speaks to the irregularity of the process leading up to it,' Raskin said during a Wednesday appearance on MSNBC's 'The Last Word.' 'Remember that this was preceded by the sacking of Maureen Comey, who was one of the senior prosecutors leading that prosecution, and they simply fired her,' he continued. 'And then that's when [Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche decided to take matters into his own hands.' Blanche, who formerly defended President Trump during criminal proceedings, met with Maxwell one-on-one in Florida for two days to discuss Epstein. The case resurfaced after the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI released a joint memo last month finding the disgraced financier did not keep a 'client list.' It also sought to dispel conspiracies around his 2019 death in a New York City jail cell, which has been ruled a suicide. Raskin suggested Blanche helped move Maxwell because he liked what he heard in the closed door meetings. 'So look, I think it seems pretty clear to the vast majority of Americans, as you're pointing out this evening, that Donald Trump's got one major interest in this whole affair at this point, which is burying any information that reveals the connection between him and Jeffrey Epstein,' the Maryland Democrat said. 'We know that they had more than a thousand FBI agents working 24 hour shifts, looking for mentions of Donald Trump's name in the Epstein files and looking for photographs of him, video snippets of him, whatever it might be,' he added. President Trump, following pressure from his base, ordered the DOJ to make transcripts of the five days of Epstein and Maxwell's grand jury testimonies public and to ask the court to unseal exhibits related to the case. A judge days later denied the request. While Republican lawmakers left Washington earlier this summer to avoid the controversy, it is likely to ramp up once again when they return in September.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Maxwell prison transfer raises witness tampering concerns, House Dems say
Ghislaine Maxwell's controversial prison transfer following her interview with a Justice Department official raises "substantial concern" the administration may be trying to tamper with a witness, some House Judiciary Democrats argued in a recent letter. The big picture: The move of the convicted sex trafficker, who was serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida, to a minimum-security facility in Texas was slammed by the family of Virginia Giuffre and other Jeffrey Epstein accusers, arguing it "smacks of a cover up." Maxwell, who is pushing to have her conviction appealed, has been the subject of ire and speculation amid backlash toward the Trump administration's handling of Epstein evidence. She met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last month, who interviewed her for two days. Driving the news: Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, led by Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), are now demanding answers on Maxwell's transfer, as well as "all documents and information" related to Blanche's interview. "These actions raise substantial concerns that the Administration may now be attempting to tamper with a crucial witness, conceal President Trump's relationship with convicted sex offenders, and coax Ms. Maxwell into providing false or misleading testimony" to protect Trump, they argued in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Bureau of Prisons Director William K. Marshall III. The lawmakers further argued the transfer "appears to violate" DOJ and Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policies, citing the "public safety factor" classification given to sex offenders, which they note would restrict such inmates from minimum-security federal prison camps with "access to the community." While the group noted obtaining a waiver is possible, they argue Maxwell "short-circuited the entire review process and jumped the queue." Catch up quick: Trump told reporters earlier this month that he didn't know about Maxwell's transfer. Trump hasn't ruled out a pardon for Maxwell, who was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in prison on sex trafficking and other charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has also issued a subpoena to Maxwell for a since-delayed deposition originally set for this month. Zoom out: Earlier this month, Democracy Defenders Fund, founded by Obama administration alumnus Norm Eisen, submitted a series of Freedom of Information Act requests seeking records of communications between DOJ and BOP leadership related to Maxwell's transfer. What we're watching: The Democratic lawmakers requested a slew of documents, including a list of all administration officials aware of Maxwell's transfer and interview transcripts, by August 26. "There can be no question that your actions have served to send a clear message to Ms. Maxwell in the lead up to any testimony before Congress and the American public: this Administration can punish or reward her as it sees fit for its own purposes," the letter read. It is "imperative," they added, for the administration to "come clean."
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump Is Having Trouble Prosecuting His Enemies
In November 2017, less than a year into his first term as president, Donald Trump publicly confronted a depressing reality. The traditions of Justice Department independence, he lamented in a radio interview, limited his ability to order an investigation of Hillary Clinton. It was 'the saddest thing,' he said. 'I'm not supposed to be doing the kind of things I would love to be doing, and I am very frustrated by it.' This time around, Trump is not similarly encumbered. During the interregnum between his terms, MAGA's would-be philosophers built out the intellectual architecture for a presidential takeover of the Justice Department. Once Trump was back in office, the new administration set about filling DOJ leadership with loyalists and firing anyone who might object to abuses of power. The president, insistent that he was the victim of persecution by federal law enforcement, now seeks to turn the same apparatus against his enemies. In a representative Truth Social post last month, he shared an AI-generated video of Barack Obama being handcuffed by FBI agents and dragged out of the Oval Office. But Trump's plan to leverage the DOJ for his campaign of revenge is not generating the results he might have hoped for, and not just because Obama remains a free man. The Justice Department has been slow to move forward with the investigations Trump demanded, hemmed in by the constraints of the legal system. Federal prosecutors targeting protesters and Democratic politicians have been dealt embarrassing defeats. American criminal law appears to be a less flexible tool in the hands of an authoritarian than Trump hoped—at least for now. Attorney General Pam Bondi identified herself right away as an enthusiastic participant in the president's personal-retribution project, launching a 'Weaponization Working Group' in February that would examine past investigations of Trump. In recent weeks, the department appears to have moved toward a potential criminal investigation of officials involved in the 2016 probe of Russian election interference. Outside the Justice Department, the Office of Special Counsel has opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who, from 2022 to 2024, oversaw the two federal criminal prosecutions of Trump for potential violations of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities by government employees. (Despite its name, the Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency with no relationship to Smith's old shop.) Jonathan Chait: Trump's desperate move to quiet the Epstein scandal This is one model of law enforcement as a weapon: specific targeting of preexisting villains. Around the country, meanwhile, federal prosecutors handpicked by Trump are experimenting with another: cracking down on dissent. Anti-ICE protesters, and even Democratic elected officials pushing for oversight of immigration enforcement, have faced criminal charges. Attorney General Robert Jackson famously warned in 1940 that the federal prosecutor 'has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.' Still, prosecutorial authority has limits. A prosecutor has to find a crime to charge in the first place. If the offense is serious enough, the prosecutor must also be able to persuade a grand jury to issue an indictment. And if the defendant refuses to plead guilty, the prosecutor must persuade a petit jury to convict. These are far from insurmountable barriers; on the contrary, as criminal-justice reformers have long argued, the deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution. But the Trump administration keeps tripping up on them anyway. After June protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles, the office of Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli filed more than 35 felony prosecutions, mostly for alleged assault of federal officers. But the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg report that prosecutors were unable to persuade a grand jury to indict in several cases, as is required for felony charges. Court records show that in the weeks following the protests, the office moved to dismiss at least eight cases and downgraded another five to misdemeanors. (In one instance, the office charged a case as a felony, dropped it to a misdemeanor, and then recharged it as a felony a month and a half later, this time with an indictment in hand. Prosecutors have secured indictments in at least 12 cases, though two of those were later dismissed and a third indictment originally identified the defendant by the wrong name.) For context, in 2016, the last year for which data are available, the Bureau of Justice Statistics recorded only six refusals by grand juries out of roughly 180,000 cases pursued by federal prosecutors around the country. In more ordinary times, the old saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich is not far off. On the opposite coast, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey has dealt with an embarrassment of its own. The office's interim leader, Alina Habba (until recently one of Trump's personal lawyers), filed trespassing charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after he attempted to visit an ICE detention facility in his city. 'NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW,' Habba trumpeted on X. Two weeks later, however, prosecutors moved to dismiss the charges. The magistrate judge handling the case chastened the office over its failure to 'thoughtfully consider the implications of your actions before wielding your immense power.' (Baraka, sitting in the courtroom during the hearing, was overheard commenting afterward, 'Jesus, he tore these people a new asshole.') Bondi, meanwhile, is struggling to respond to the president's demands to prosecute people involved in perpetrating what Trump calls the 'Russia hoax.' The biggest challenge there is that there was no hoax; as both Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a bipartisan Senate intelligence report concluded, Russia really did try to help Trump win the 2016 election. For that matter, even if the Justice Department could somehow identify a crime, any number of legal issues could trip up a prosecution—including the fact that the conduct in question took place almost 10 years ago, well past the typical five-year window for charging an offense. According to The New York Times, the attorney general was caught unawares by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's release of documents from 2016, and displeased about the political pressure from the right to launch an investigation in response. Despite an exciting headline from Fox News—'DOJ Launching Grand Jury Investigation Into Russiagate Conspiracy Allegations'—all Bondi appears to have done is ask prosecutors to possibly present grand jurors with evidence. When a grand jury will actually convene, and indeed whether it ever will, is not clear. Bondi's hedging on Russia hints at a broader awareness within the Justice Department that securing indictments, much less guilty verdicts, may be a problem. In May, Ed Martin, the crusading Trump supporter who is now leading the Justice Department's Weaponization Working Group, suggested that if the department were unable to charge 'bad actors' with crimes, it would settle for naming and shaming them publicly. (This would be a departure from long-running department policy, which holds that 'no legitimate governmental interest' is served by publicly voicing allegations against individuals without an accompanying criminal case.) Similarly, the investigation of Jack Smith might be a tacit admission of how little the administration has to go on here: The harshest penalty that the Office of Special Counsel could demand would be Smith's dismissal from government service, but he has already resigned. Shane Harris: The 'Russia hoax,' revisited These challenges are similar to ones that Trump ran into during his first term. In fact, the FBI's 2016 election-interference investigation was already the subject of an investigation by Special Counsel John Durham, which began in 2019. Despite MAGA hype, Durham's probe was a flop: He brought three criminal cases concerning alleged wrongdoing around the Russia investigation, two of which ended in acquittals by juries. (A third led to a former FBI lawyer being sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to having altered an email.) And a shaky criminal probe into former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, whom Trump had seized on as a symbol of the nefarious 'deep state,' quietly ground to a halt without charges being filed. It's difficult to say exactly what happened in the McCabe case because of strict rules around grand-jury secrecy, but one possibility is that jurors declined to issue an indictment. Still, the jury system will not always act as a defense against abuses. The same day that Baraka's case was dismissed, Habba announced her intent to indict Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver for 'forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers' when attempting to shield Baraka from arrest. A grand jury returned the indictment. McIver has pleaded not guilty, but others might make different calculations: The overwhelming majority of criminal cases end with plea deals, because defendants decide against taking their chances in court. Meanwhile, the Justice Department recently sent out grand-jury subpoenas targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James over investigations by her office into Trump and the National Rifle Association. Fox News reports that another investigation may be under way into Trump's claims of supposed mortgage fraud by James and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. Even if the harassment of James and Schiff goes nowhere, criminal investigations like these can be a grueling experience for the defendant, especially given the enormous cost of paying for a defense lawyer. A jury is in essence a democratic institution, requiring citizens to exercise their judgment in a model of shared deliberation that is at odds with Trump's autocratic tendencies. In the colonial era, grand juries sometimes refused to indict protesters against the Crown; in the decades before the Civil War, both grand and petit juries nullified prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Yet although the American jury system can be a powerful tool in the fight for self-government, it has not always been a reliable one. Juries also helped build the foundations of the Jim Crow South by shielding white Southerners from legal accountability for racial terror. So far, the system has held up against Trump's encroachment. But the rapid erosion of democratic life in the United States over the past six months is a reminder of how quickly things can change.
