(ECUADOR) — Voluntary departure (often described in headlines as “self-deportation”) is an immigration remedy that can end a person’s U.S. physical presence quickly—and, in rare cases, it can also upend a pending federal criminal prosecution.
That intersection is now in focus after Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores, 42, described in court filings and related reporting as a lawful permanent resident (LPR), departed the United States for Ecuador in late December 2025 while facing federal charges tied to the 2022 Brinks truck heist involving roughly $100 million in diamonds, gold, rubies, and luxury watches.
In immigration terms, the key issue is not the headline phrase “self-deport,” but the mechanism: a form of voluntary departure or expedited departure process that can remove a defendant from U.S. custody before trial.
This guide explains (1) what voluntary departure is, (2) how it can intersect with DOJ prosecutions, (3) what documents typically exist, and (4) defense strategies and risks for noncitizen defendants—both in the United States and, briefly, in the UK context.
It also summarizes the publicly reported DHS incentive figures: a $3,000 holiday stipend offered in December 2025, and an “exit bonus” of $2,600 (plus a free flight) for those using the CBP Home app “as of January 21, 2026.”
1) Overview of the case: why immigration outcomes can decide a criminal path
Federal prosecutors charged Flores as one of seven men in the July 2022 theft from a Brinks vehicle at the Flying J Travel Center in Lebec, California. Most of the goods reportedly remain unrecovered.
In January 2026 filings, prosecutors said they were surprised to learn he had left the country.
In plain language, voluntary departure is a process where a person leaves the United States without a final removal order in certain circumstances. See INA § 240B and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26.
It can matter in a criminal case because a defendant outside the U.S. may be harder to prosecute, especially if the person is no longer in federal custody and cannot be compelled to appear.
For defense counsel, the core question is strategic and fact-specific: Does leaving the U.S. now reduce criminal exposure, or does it create worse immigration and criminal consequences later?
The answer depends on custody status, the charging posture, and whether prosecutors intend to seek extradition or proceed in absentia (rare in federal criminal cases).
2) Key facts and policy details: custody sequence and the voluntary-departure pathway
Known facts reported in the public narrative include:
- The alleged theft occurred in Lebec, California, at the Flying J Travel Center, in July 2022.
- Flores was described as an LPR.
- Flores was reportedly taken into ICE custody in September 2025 on an immigration detainer after being released on bond in the criminal case.
- His departure to Ecuador was reported as occurring on or about December 29, 2025.
What is typically less visible is the administrative sequence. Voluntary departure can arise in different ways.
- Immigration-court voluntary departure (pre- or post-conclusion). This requires an Immigration Judge order under INA § 240B and compliance with strict deadlines and bond requirements in many cases. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26.
- DHS-facilitated departure outside immigration court. This may occur when DHS exercises discretion in how it executes enforcement priorities and custody decisions. The label used publicly (“self-deport”) may not match a single formal statutory bucket.
Travel is usually arranged through ICE or coordinated release and routing, depending on the posture. Incentives and travel arrangements have been publicly discussed in DHS messaging.
Reported figures include a $3,000 holiday stipend in December 2025 and, as of January 21, 2026, an “exit bonus” of $2,600 plus a free flight tied to the CBP Home app.
What remains unclear from public summaries is the exact legal basis for Flores’s departure. Another unresolved point is timing: whether DOJ had a meaningful chance to seek a writ, coordinate transfer, or ask the court to address custody before departure.
Warning: If you are a noncitizen defendant, do not assume “voluntary departure” is informal or risk-free. A misstep can trigger bars on return, loss of status, or detention.
3) Official statements and what they mean procedurally
In a January 15, 2026 filing opposing dismissal, prosecutors Kevin Butler and Jena MacCabe wrote they had “genuine surprise” at the deportation and framed Flores’s choice as between asserting LPR rights and litigating the criminal case, or waiving rights to leave and “avoid criminal exposure.”
Procedurally, that language signals two important points:
- DOJ believed coordination failed or notice was insufficient.
- DOJ viewed the departure as a waiver-driven choice, not merely an agency transfer.
DHS messaging, including a January 2, 2026 statement attributed to Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, touted enforcement and removals, but did not purport to describe Flores’s case.
A January 21, 2026 DHS statement attributed to Secretary Kristi Noem promoted self-departure incentives and warned of enforcement for those who do not depart.
Readers should distinguish between:
- Policy announcements (broad statements about programs), and
- Case-specific authority (detainers, custody records, notices to appear, voluntary departure orders, and criminal docket entries).
A policy press release does not resolve what happened in a specific detention chain. The criminal docket and ICE documentation usually do.
4) Context and impact: coordination gaps, dismissal mechanics, and victims’ interests
DOJ and DHS can move on different tracks
DOJ prosecutes crimes in federal court. DHS enforces immigration law through ICE and immigration courts (EOIR). Those tracks often intersect through detainers, custody transfers, and release decisions.
Breakdowns can occur when the criminal case is not the “primary” custody driver.
For defense counsel, this split creates both opportunities and risks. A client may leave the U.S. quickly. But the same departure can later be characterized as flight, waiver, or obstruction in other contexts.
What “dismissal” may mean
Flores’s counsel reportedly moved to dismiss the indictment on January 9, 2026. A judge reportedly granted dismissal, though accounts vary on whether it was with prejudice or without prejudice.
Without prejudice typically allows the government to refile charges later, subject to statutes of limitation and practical constraints.
With prejudice generally bars refiling of the same charges.
In federal criminal practice, dismissals often proceed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) (government motion) or court authority tied to due process and fairness considerations. The exact order language matters.
Victim impact and restitution realities
Victims and their counsel have voiced frustration. That reaction is predictable in high-loss cases involving unrecovered property.
A dismissal and departure can complicate restitution collection, recovery efforts, and the public fact-finding that comes with trial.
It does not necessarily make future proceedings impossible. But it can raise costs and uncertainty.
Deadline Watch: Immigration-court voluntary departure has strict departure deadlines. Missing them can convert the outcome into a removal order and trigger civil penalties. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26.
5) Timeline: how the dates connect to process steps
- July 2022 (Lebec, CA): Brinks vehicle theft at the Flying J Travel Center. The alleged loss is about $100 million.
- September 2025: Flores is reportedly taken into ICE custody on a detainer after criminal bond release. Immigration custody becomes the controlling track.
- Late December 2025 (around Dec. 29): Flores departs to Ecuador. That departure becomes the pivot point for criminal scheduling and custody.
- Jan. 9–15, 2026: Defense files a motion to dismiss. Prosecutors oppose and describe surprise. Reports indicate dismissal was granted, with conflicting descriptions of prejudice.
- Jan. 21, 2026: DHS announces the self-departure incentive update, including $2,600 via the CBP Home app (plus flight), providing broader policy context.
6) Official sources and references: what to pull and how to verify
To verify key procedural claims, readers should look to primary sources:
- DHS press release (Jan. 21, 2026) describing the incentive update and CBP Home app: DHS press release.
- DHS Newsroom (Jan. 2, 2026) describing holiday-period enforcement messaging: DHS Newsroom.
- DOJ / U.S. Attorney’s Office filings in United States v. Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores (C.D. Cal.), especially document titles like “Motion to Dismiss Indictment,” “Opposition,” “Order,” and “Minute Entry.”
When reviewing the criminal docket, confirm whether dismissal is with or without prejudice, whether any custody-related filings are sealed, and whether there were writ requests or interagency notices that explain timing.
For immigration-law background, consult EOIR and USCIS references on proceedings and status issues: EOIR resources and USCIS policy manual.
Warning: If you are an LPR, do not assume you can “self-deport” and later resume residence. Abandonment findings, inadmissibility grounds, and criminal bars can apply. Consult counsel before signing anything.
Defense strategy takeaways (U.S. and UK touchpoint)
For U.S. defendants: Voluntary departure can be a defense strategy only when counsel has mapped the downstream effects. Key evidence and records include: the ICE detainer, custody logs, NTA, any voluntary departure paperwork, flight arrangements, and all criminal bond and release conditions.
Counsel also evaluates whether the government’s actions support equitable arguments in the criminal case, without assuming dismissal is permanent.
For UK readers: The UK has different mechanisms (administrative removal, voluntary return, deportation orders). The strategic tension is similar: leaving can end immediate custody, but it can also harden future re-entry barriers and complicate criminal matters.
Cross-border cases require coordinated UK and U.S. advice. Attorney representation is critical here. These are high-stakes, fast-moving decisions with consequences in two legal systems.
This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
