- Hilario’s attorneys filed a habeas petition on October thirteenth, twenty twenty-six, seeking help bringing him back from Mexico.
- DHS says Hilario signed a voluntary-departure form on September sixth and left the United States on September sixteenth, twenty twenty-six.
- The court must consider whether a valid removal order existed and whether it can grant relief after Hilario’s removal.
Attorneys for Ernesto Zuniga Hilario say ICE sent him from Texas to Mexico without a valid removal order or a meaningful chance to contest his deportation. The Mexican national’s habeas petition, filed October 13, 2026, asks a federal court to help bring him back.
Hilario had lived in the United States for nearly 20 years, according to the filing. He is married to Obdulia Cervantes Vega, a lawful permanent resident, and is the father of four U.S.-citizen children.
Free toolCSPA Age-Out Calculator Online
The Department of Homeland Security disputes the account. A spokesperson says Hilario signed a voluntary-departure form and left the country voluntarily.
The two accounts conflict on what happened before his flight. No ruling has resolved that dispute.
The petition and DHS give different accounts of his departure
Hilario’s attorneys say ICE detained him in Texas in September, put him on a bus to an airport and flew him to Mexico City. They argue he was not subject to expedited removal and had no prior order from an immigration judge authorizing his deportation.
DHS says a traffic stop by the Lampasas County Sheriff’s Office preceded ICE’s arrest on September 6, 2026. The department says Hilario signed a voluntary-departure form that day, “in blue ink,” and left the United States on September 16, 2026.
The spokesperson said:
“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.”
DHS also alleges that he entered the country unlawfully, “at an unknown date and time by sneaking across our border on foot.” The department characterized the due-process allegations as false.
His lawyers say he repeatedly refused to leave voluntarily because he wanted to present his case to an immigration judge. The petition says he expected immigration-court proceedings and was not given a meaningful chance to understand or challenge the legal basis for his removal.
The petition challenges the order and the process behind it
The dispute centers on which legal authority, if any, allowed ICE to send him to Mexico. His attorneys say previous encounters with immigration authorities did not result in a valid removal order.
They also argue that if officials sought to reinstate an earlier order, they had to notify him and give him a chance to contest that step. The petition says no such valid order existed. DHS’s account, by contrast, rests on his alleged agreement to depart.
The court may have to determine whether there was a final removal order, whether officials used expedited removal or reinstatement procedures, and whether the signed document reflected a knowing and voluntary decision. The filing raises the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections as well.
Those are allegations, not a judicial finding that DHS acted unlawfully. The question of whether the document was voluntary remains central to the competing accounts.
Removal leaves a jurisdiction question for the federal court
Hilario’s attorneys filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas after he had already been removed. That timing creates a jurisdictional obstacle acknowledged in the petition.
His lawyers argue that the court can still act because, they allege, the government removed him without an underlying order and without a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision. They seek a writ of habeas corpus and judicial assistance to facilitate his return to the United States.
The filing puts the court’s authority in issue as well as the legality of the departure. A court would need to consider whether it can provide relief after removal and whether the alleged procedures violated his rights.
Marriage and children do not automatically block removal
Hilario’s family ties do not by themselves prevent the government from removing him. A lawful permanent resident’s marriage to another permanent resident or a U.S. citizen is not an automatic bar, though the government generally must establish a legally sufficient basis for removal.
Potential defenses or forms of relief depend on the grounds alleged and the person’s procedural history. They may include cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents, waivers, asylum-related protection, or challenges to the validity of the removal process.
Eligibility turns on the individual facts, including the asserted ground for removal, immigration and criminal history, prior orders, and any statutory bars. The petition does not establish that Hilario qualifies for a particular form of relief.
The case comes amid a wider deportation campaign
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin described ICE removals as part of President Trump’s enforcement mandate on September 17, 2026. He said:
“Last week, the hard-working men and women of ICE deported even more illegal aliens from our country, including murderers, pedophiles, drunk drivers, and robbers.”
He added: “Every single deportation makes America safer.” The administration’s stated rationale focuses on enforcement; Hilario’s case turns on whether officials followed the procedures applicable to him.
A separate tracker counted 442,637 ICE removals in fiscal year 2025, which ran from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025. It put the total approximately 171,000 above fiscal year 2024. Those figures describe the broader enforcement period, not the legal basis for Hilario’s removal.
The petition asks the court to facilitate his return. The court had not yet granted that relief.
