DHS Disputes Deportee's Claim He Was Removed Without Process

On September 6, DHS says, Ernesto Zuniga Hilario signed his own voluntary departure form. He says he never agreed to leave. A federal judge in Texas may now have to decide which account holds up.

Zuniga Hilario, a Mexican national who says he lived in the United States for nearly two decades, filed a habeas corpus petition Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. His attorneys want the court to facilitate his return after immigration authorities removed him to Mexico. He claims there was no valid removal order and says he repeatedly refused to depart.

The Government's Account

DHS pushed back hard. A spokesperson told Newsweek: "Any allegation that Ernesto Zuniga Hilario didn't receive due process is FALSE. Zuniga Hilario signed his voluntary departure form on September 6 in blue ink. He left the United States and returned to Mexico on September 16. Breaking our country's laws is always a bad decision."

The agency said ICE arrested him September 6 after the Lampasas County Sheriff's Office conducted a traffic stop. It also said he entered the country illegally "at an unknown date and time by sneaking across our border on foot." Many such cases begin with cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers.

Zuniga Hilario acknowledges that he last entered without inspection around 2008. He also acknowledges previous encounters with immigration authorities, though he says none produced a removal order.

The Petition's Claims

His account differs sharply. According to the petition, ICE detained him in Texas in September and held him at the T. Don Hutto detention facility in Taylor. An ICE detainee-locator record submitted as an exhibit lists that facility as his location. He says officers repeatedly asked if he wanted to depart voluntarily, and each time he declined because he wanted to present his case to an immigration judge.

Instead, the petition alleges, authorities put him on a bus, drove him to an airport and flew him to Mexico City. He calls the departure involuntary. His attorneys argue that if officials were reinstating an earlier removal order, they had to notify him and let him contest it.

The petition identifies his wife, Obdulia Cervantes Vega, as a lawful permanent resident and says the couple has four U.S.-citizen children. Court filings say officers apprehended him while he traveled with his family in connection with a therapy appointment.

A Jurisdictional Hurdle

His lawyers concede a problem. He had already been removed when they filed the case, and the petition acknowledges a potential jurisdictional obstacle. They argue the case differs because, they allege, the government removed him without an underlying removal order and without giving him a meaningful chance to challenge the action. Newsweek said it contacted his legal team by email Wednesday and was awaiting a response.

The report places the case in a broader frame. Under the Trump administration's mass deportation policy, it says, cases have involved wrongful deportations and removals carried out in defiance of court orders. Federal judges have challenged the administration over wrongful removals and, in some instances, ordered DHS to facilitate returns of people improperly deported.

Why This Matters:

The dispute comes down to a documentary question: did a signed form exist, and did he sign it knowingly? DHS says yes. The petition says no. A federal court can test those competing claims against the paperwork, which is exactly what judicial review is for. Enforcement that holds up to scrutiny strengthens public confidence in immigration law. Enforcement that can't undermines it. The case also shows the practical stakes for the government: every contested removal that ends in a court-ordered return costs taxpayer money and invites litigation. For a country that wants its immigration rules respected, clear records and consistent procedure aren't just legal niceties. They're what make those rules defensible.