Key Takeaways
• ICE arrested a transgender asylum seeker, O-J-M, in Oregon on June 2, 2025, post-court hearing.
• Judge Amy Baggio issued an emergency order preventing O-J-M’s removal and demanded ICE explain her whereabouts.
• ICE dismissing asylum cases and using expedited removal raises legal concerns amid Oregon’s sanctuary policies.
A federal judge in Oregon has demanded immediate answers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the agency removed a transgender asylum seeker from the state under circumstances that have raised serious legal and human rights questions. The case, which centers on a 24-year-old woman from Mexico, highlights the growing tension between federal immigration enforcement and local protections for vulnerable immigrants in Oregon.
Who is involved? The main person at the center of this case is a transgender asylum seeker, identified in court documents as “O-J-M.” She is a 24-year-old woman from Mexico who has been living in Vancouver, Washington. The federal agency involved is ICE, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The legal oversight comes from U.S. District Court Judge Amy Baggio, who is based in Oregon.
What happened? On June 2, 2025, ICE officers arrested O-J-M outside the Portland Immigration Court, right after she attended a scheduled hearing for her asylum case. The next day, Judge Baggio issued an emergency order to stop DHS from removing O-J-M from Oregon and demanded detailed explanations from ICE about her whereabouts and the reasons for her removal.
Where did this take place? The arrest happened outside the Portland Immigration Court in Oregon. However, because Oregon does not have long-term immigration detention centers, it is unclear where ICE took O-J-M after her arrest.
When did this occur? The arrest took place on June 2, 2025. Judge Baggio’s order was issued on June 3, 2025.
Why is this important? This case raises questions about how ICE is handling asylum seekers, especially those who are part of vulnerable groups, such as transgender individuals. It also highlights the conflict between federal immigration enforcement and Oregon’s sanctuary state policies, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
How did this happen? ICE arrested O-J-M immediately after her court hearing, then moved to dismiss her asylum case, which removed the legal protections she had while her case was pending. Her attorneys filed an emergency petition to bring her before a federal judge, but as of the latest reports, they do not know where she is being held.
Let’s break down the details and implications of this case.
The Arrest and Immediate Legal Response
On June 2, 2025, O-J-M attended her scheduled hearing at the Portland Immigration Court. As she left the courthouse, ICE agents arrested her. This move surprised her legal team, as she had complied with all requirements since entering the United States 🇺🇸 in September 2023. She had:
- Attended all required ICE check-ins
- Filed her formal asylum claim in February 2025
- Responded to removal proceedings started in April 2025
Her asylum claim is based on severe threats and violence she faced in Mexico 🇲🇽. According to court documents, members of a drug cartel sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her because she is transgender. She first sought protection at the Calexico, California port of entry, where she was detained and later released.
After her arrest in Oregon, her attorneys quickly filed a habeas corpus petition. This is a legal request asking a court to order the government to bring a detained person before a judge to determine if their detention is lawful. Judge Baggio responded by issuing a court order that:
- Prohibits DHS from removing O-J-M from Oregon
- Requires ICE to notify the court within two hours if she has already been removed
- Demands ICE provide the exact date, time, and reason for her removal from Oregon
As of the latest updates, her attorneys still do not know where she is being held.
ICE’s Procedural Actions and Policy Shifts
What makes this case stand out is how ICE handled O-J-M’s asylum process. Instead of letting her asylum application move forward in court, ICE attorneys asked to dismiss her case. This action removed the legal protections she had while her asylum claim was being considered.
A DHS spokesperson explained the agency’s position: “ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been. If they have a valid credible fear claim, they will continue in immigration proceedings, but if no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation.”
Expedited removal is a process where certain immigrants can be quickly deported without a full hearing before an immigration judge. However, if someone claims a credible fear of returning to their home country, they are supposed to get a more detailed interview and, if found credible, a chance to present their case in court.
In O-J-M’s situation, ICE’s move to dismiss her case and remove her from Oregon raises questions about whether she was given the full protections and process required by law.
Oregon’s Sanctuary State Laws and Detention Challenges
Oregon is known as a sanctuary state. This means state and local laws limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For example, local jails in Oregon are not allowed to contract with ICE to hold immigration detainees for long periods.
Because of these laws, Oregon does not have long-term immigration detention centers. The only ICE holding facilities in the state are short-term cells at the Portland ICE office. The nearest long-term detention center is in Tacoma, Washington. This situation makes it difficult for attorneys and family members to know where someone is being held after an ICE arrest in Oregon.
In O-J-M’s case, her attorneys have said they do not know where she is. This lack of information is common in Oregon and other sanctuary states, where ICE often transfers detainees out of state quickly.
Broader Policy Changes and National Trends
This case is not happening in isolation. It is part of a larger shift in how ICE is enforcing immigration laws under the current administration. Recent reports show that ICE has started arresting people at scheduled court hearings and check-ins, a practice that was less common in previous years.
The administration has said this is a deliberate change in policy. The goal is to speed up the removal of people who do not have legal status, even if they have pending asylum claims or other legal cases.
Key points about current enforcement trends:
- ICE is targeting people at court hearings and check-ins
- The administration is using expedited removal more often
- Many asylum seekers are being removed before their cases are fully heard
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, these changes have led to more cases like O-J-M’s, where people are arrested and removed from the state before their legal process is complete.
The Asylum Process: Delays and Uncertainty
The average asylum case in U.S. immigration court now takes about 4.25 years from start to finish. This long wait leaves many asylum seekers in a state of uncertainty, unable to plan their futures or reunite with family members.
However, the administration’s new approach is to use expedited processes that can cut these timelines down to weeks or even days. While this may reduce backlogs, it also increases the risk that people with valid asylum claims will be deported before they have a fair chance to present their case.
For people like O-J-M, who face serious threats in their home countries, this can be a matter of life and death.
Legal Precedents and Judicial Oversight
Courts have played a key role in checking ICE’s actions when it comes to removing asylum seekers. In a similar case, a federal judge ruled that the government cannot simply skip the required legal process, even if it plans to deny an asylum claim. The judge said the government must follow the correct steps in U.S. courts.
The Supreme Court has also weighed in, upholding lower court orders that require the government to bring back people who were improperly removed from the United States 🇺🇸.
Judge Baggio’s order in O-J-M’s case follows this legal tradition. By demanding answers from ICE and stopping her removal from Oregon, the judge is making sure that the government follows the law and respects the rights of asylum seekers.
Implications for Stakeholders
This case has important consequences for several groups:
Asylum Seekers
- Increased risk of sudden arrest and removal: Even those who are following all legal requirements can be detained and removed quickly.
- Uncertainty about legal protections: If ICE can dismiss cases and use expedited removal, asylum seekers may lose the chance to present their claims fully.
- Difficulty accessing legal help: When people are moved out of state, it becomes harder for lawyers and families to find and help them.
Legal Advocates
- Challenges in tracking clients: Sanctuary state laws make it harder to know where detainees are being held.
- Need for rapid legal action: Attorneys must be ready to file emergency petitions, like habeas corpus, to protect their clients’ rights.
Local and State Governments
- Tension with federal authorities: Sanctuary policies are being tested by aggressive federal enforcement.
- Limited ability to protect residents: Without local detention centers, states like Oregon have less control over what happens to people arrested by ICE.
Federal Agencies
- Pressure to enforce immigration laws: ICE is under orders to speed up removals, even if it means bypassing traditional court processes.
- Legal scrutiny: Courts are watching closely and may intervene if agencies do not follow proper procedures.
What Happens Next?
As of now, Judge Baggio’s order remains in effect. ICE must provide the court with detailed information about O-J-M’s location and the reasons for her removal from Oregon. Legal experts are watching to see if the agency will comply and whether the judge will take further action if ICE does not respond fully.
This case could set an important precedent for how ICE operates in sanctuary states and how courts respond to rapid removals of asylum seekers. It may also influence future policies on how and when federal agencies can detain and remove people who are seeking protection in the United States 🇺🇸.
Practical Guidance for Asylum Seekers and Advocates
If you or someone you know is an asylum seeker in Oregon or another sanctuary state, here are some steps to consider:
- Stay in close contact with your attorney: Let them know about any scheduled check-ins or court hearings.
- Keep copies of all documents: This includes your asylum application, notices from ICE, and any court orders.
- Know your rights: You have the right to ask for a hearing before an immigration judge if you fear returning to your home country. Learn more about your rights from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum page.
- Act quickly if detained: Your attorney can file a habeas corpus petition to bring your case before a federal judge if you are detained.
Conclusion
The case of O-J-M, the transgender asylum seeker removed from Oregon by ICE, shines a light on the complex and often harsh realities of immigration enforcement in the United States 🇺🇸. It shows how quickly things can change for people seeking safety, especially in states with strong protections for immigrants. As reported by VisaVerge.com, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects on how asylum seekers are treated, not only in Oregon but across the country.
For now, the legal battle continues, with the hope that the courts will ensure fair treatment and due process for all who seek protection in the United States 🇺🇸.
Learn Today
ICE → U.S. agency enforcing immigration laws, responsible for arrests and deportations of unauthorized immigrants.
Asylum Seeker → A person seeking protection in another country due to persecution or danger in their home country.
Expedited Removal → A fast deportation process bypassing full immigration hearings for certain immigrants without valid claims.
Sanctuary State → A state limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect immigrant residents’ rights.
Habeas Corpus → A legal petition requiring authorities to justify the detention of a person before a judge.
This Article in a Nutshell
A transgender asylum seeker from Mexico was arrested by ICE in Oregon after a court hearing. A judge immediately halted her removal, seeking answers from ICE about her location and treatment amid growing concerns over expedited deportations and sanctuary state conflicts.
— By VisaVerge.com
