Immigration Judge Schedules Surprise Hearing for José Barco

(VENEZUELA) An immigration judge has set a surprise Master Calendar Hearing for José Barco on September 4, 2025, adding an unexpected step to a high-stakes deportation case that already appeared close to a ruling. Barco, 39, is a decorated U.S. Army veteran and Purple Heart recipient who has been held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for over seven months while the court weighs whether he can be removed from the United States.

The new hearing notice arrived on August 22, less than two weeks after Barco and his wife testified in what he believed would be his final hearing. The late-stage turn has startled even seasoned lawyers who say Master Calendar sessions are usually early, administrative hearings — not a last-minute return to square one.

What happened this summer

On August 11, Barco took the stand in immigration court and his wife, Tia, spoke publicly about his case for the first time in almost a decade. She told the court she fears for his safety if he is deported to Venezuela, where local media have painted him as a U.S. spy.

At that time, his legal team expected a decision to follow soon. Instead, the judge held back from ruling, signaling a deeper review. Then the unexpected notice arrived: a new Master Calendar Hearing, set for early September.

Denver immigration attorney Mark Barr, who is working on the case, called the extra hearing “an interesting development,” noting that removability — the legal term for whether the government can deport a person under the law — had already been established. Earlier hearings focused on whether Barco could qualify for protection from deportation. Scheduling a Master Calendar Hearing now suggests the judge wants to revisit procedural or evidentiary issues before making any final ruling.

Background: Barco’s life, service, and legal exposure

• Born in Venezuela to Cuban parents, Barco has lived in the United States since he was young.
• He served in the U.S. Army, including a combat tour in Iraq, and received a Purple Heart for injuries.
• Despite his military record, the federal government seeks deportation based on a violent criminal conviction.
• This combination has made his case a flashpoint in debates over veterans with criminal records who remain subject to removal under immigration law.

Complicating the case further is the stance of Venezuelan authorities. The government there has refused to accept Barco, citing allegations that his birth certificate is fraudulent. In April 2025, the United States tried to deport him to Venezuela, but officials rejected him during a transit stop in Honduras, forcing his return to U.S. custody.

That failed removal attempt leaves open a painful question: even if an immigration judge orders deportation, what happens when the receiving country will not take the person back?

Protection claims and medical concerns

Barco has told the court he fears persecution and torture if deported to Venezuela, Cuba, or Mexico. He points to his U.S. military background and family history as reasons he could be targeted. He is seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) — the treaty that prohibits returning someone to a country where they are more likely than not to face torture.

His lawyers also argue that:

• His combat injuries and PTSD, especially visible symptoms, would put him at risk if he were sent to Mexico, where they say his profile would draw attention and harm.
• The failed April removal attempt and media portrayals in Venezuela (the “spy” label) increase his vulnerability.

Pro bono counsel Kevin O’Connor and attorney Mark Barr argue that the risks he faces abroad and his medical needs at home should weigh against deportation.

Detention and current status

• Barco remains in immigration detention in Colorado, linked to the Aurora Immigration Court and the Denver Contract Detention Facility in Aurora.
• The detention adds urgency: his family waits outside as days turn into months.
• ICE has said it is “working to enact the judge’s order” on removal, while declining further comment given the ongoing case.

Unusual hearing at a late stage

A Master Calendar Hearing is typically a basic, early step in immigration court where the judge:

• Confirms the government’s charges,
• Handles scheduling and administrative matters,
• Sets future dates.

These sessions differ from individual or merits hearings, which are longer and focus on evidence and witness testimony. For the official description of immigration hearing types, see the government’s overview in the EOIR Policy Manual, Chapter 4: Hearings.

That is why the September 4 Master Calendar Hearing stands out. Barco already finished what he thought was his final merits hearing on August 11, and his removability had been addressed earlier. The judge’s choice to hold a Master Calendar session now suggests one or more of the following:

• New procedural questions need resolving,
• The record must be organized or clarified,
• The judge wants to confirm the exact scope of the deportation charge before issuing a final order.

Legal observers stress this does not reveal the judge’s leanings; rather, it signals careful attention to process in a complicated case.

The upcoming session is expected to be a closed hearing focusing on procedural matters tied to the removability charge. The public will not be present, but the stakes remain high for Barco.

ICE and DHS continue to press for deportation while keeping public comments minimal. Supporters hope the hearing will help make the record clear on protection claims, especially under CAT.

Why the failed April removal matters

The April deportation attempt that ended at a transit stop in Honduras underscores practical barriers to removal:

• Venezuelan authorities rejected Barco during transit, forcing his return to U.S. custody.
• That refusal shows the limits of a removal order when the receiving country declines to accept the person.
• Barco’s lawyers say a stalled or failed removal can expose a person to extra risk in a third country, which feeds into CAT-based arguments.

These real-world complications often influence how courts approach final orders and enforcement logistics.

Policy issues and human stakes

Barco’s case touches on several broader tensions:

1. Deportation for veterans with criminal convictions
   • Federal law does not exempt veterans from removal for qualifying convictions.
   • Advocates call for careful consideration of medical care, trauma, and reintegration challenges.
   • Critics say the law must apply consistently and that serious crimes warrant serious consequences.
2. The CAT standard
   • The U.S. must not send someone to a place where they are more likely than not to be tortured.
   • CAT claims often hinge on detailed country conditions and personal risk factors.
   • Barco’s lawyers emphasize his U.S. service, combat injuries, PTSD, and media portrayals as elevating his risk.
3. The problem of repatriation
   • Even with a removal order, the receiving country’s cooperation is required.
   • Venezuelan refusal in April shows there may be no clear path to removal.
   • DHS and ICE still view him as deportable and are working to carry out orders.

For the Barco family, these are not abstract debates. Tia Barco’s decision to testify after nearly ten years put a human face on the process and highlighted the emotional toll on families. Her testimony and Barco’s veteran status have rallied veteran support groups and advocates urging special care.

What to watch on September 4, 2025

• The hearing is likely to be short, closed, and focused on procedural points tied to the removability charge.
• Possible outcomes of this session:
  1. Clarification of the exact removability charge on the record
  2. Resolution of late procedural or evidentiary questions
  3. Setting deadlines or steps before a final merits ruling
• The hearing itself will likely shape the path to a final decision, but it is not a ruling.

With more than seven months in detention, every added hearing increases the timeline and the emotional strain. Supporters emphasize that when torture claims are raised, taking time to make a complete record is essential. Opponents insist that the law has been applied and the focus should be on enforcement.

Broader implications

• Veteran advocates and legal aid groups say the case could influence how the U.S. treats veterans facing deportation, especially those with service-related wounds and trauma.
• Law-and-order voices stress consistent enforcement for serious crimes.
• Immigration reporters and legal watchers — from national outlets to specialized sites like VisaVerge.com — are tracking the case as a window into how policy meets real life.

Whatever happens on September 4, 2025, the outcome will ripple beyond one family. The hearing signals the court is not rushing and wants procedural clarity, especially given the failed removal attempt and the receiving-country refusal.

For now, José Barco waits in detention, his wife waits at home, and a judge prepares to ask one more round of questions before deciding whether deportation can, or should, go forward.