(PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA) — A federal sentence announced January 30, 2026 underscores a recurring immigration-law reality: when protest-related conduct is charged as a destructive-device offense, the criminal case can quickly become a removal case, with limited relief options and high detention risk for noncitizens.
Federal prosecutors said Emiliano Garduño Gálvez, 23, a Paramount resident and Mexican national, received 48 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to possessing an unregistered destructive device and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder.
For immigration practitioners, the practical impact is less about the prison term and more about the likely downstream consequences under the firearms and aggravated-felony provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which can bar many forms of relief and accelerate deportation proceedings.
A key interpretive touchstone is Matter of Vasquez-Muniz, 23 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2002), where the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that certain firearms convictions can qualify as aggravated felonies under INA § 101(a)(43)(E).
While Vasquez-Muniz addressed a different statute and fact pattern, its core lesson carries into destructive-device cases: firearms-related convictions frequently trigger removability and restrict discretionary relief, especially in the Ninth Circuit where California cases arise.
1) Incident, charges, and sentencing
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the case stems from a June 2025 protest in Paramount against immigration raids.
Prosecutors described the demonstration as part of broader unrest tied to immigration enforcement activity. DOJ stated that on June 7, 2025, Garduño Gálvez was seen behind a stone wall, then lit and threw a Molotov cocktail toward Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who were performing crowd-control duties.
DOJ described the device as landing near a lawful protester and roughly 15 feet from deputies. The federal case ended in a sentencing announcement on January 30, 2026, with DOJ reporting a 48-month federal prison sentence.
It is important to separate allegations from admissions. DOJ’s narrative describes what prosecutors said happened and how the incident affected public safety.
The guilty plea, by contrast, reflects what the defendant admitted was provable beyond a reasonable doubt for the specific federal counts.
Warning: Public narratives can differ from plea facts. Immigration courts typically rely on the record of conviction, not media summaries.
2) Charges and legal specifics
DOJ reported that Garduño Gálvez pleaded guilty in October 2025 to two federal offenses:
- Possession of an unregistered destructive device — 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)
- Obstructing, impeding, or interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder — 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3)
What prosecutors generally must prove
Unregistered destructive device (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)). This statute is part of the National Firearms Act.
In simplified terms, prosecutors must show the person knowingly possessed a “firearm” as defined by the Act, and that it was not registered to them in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
Under federal definitions, a “destructive device” can include certain explosive or incendiary weapons. Molotov cocktails are frequently charged as destructive devices in federal cases.
Civil-disorder interference (18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3)). This offense generally requires proof that the person committed or attempted to commit an act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with law enforcement during a “civil disorder.”
The statute is often charged when prosecutors say violence or destructive acts interfered with officers’ ability to perform official duties amid unrest.
Why the described conduct fits the charging theory
Based on DOJ’s description, the prosecution theory was straightforward. Throwing an incendiary device during crowd control can be framed as possessing and deploying an unregistered destructive device.
It can also be framed as interfering with law enforcement activity during a civil disorder.
Guilty plea versus conviction after trial
A guilty plea is still a conviction for immigration purposes. Under INA § 101(a)(48)(A), a “conviction” includes a formal judgment of guilt.
It also can include certain withheld-adjudication outcomes with a plea and punishment. In most federal cases, a guilty plea produces a clear record that immigration authorities can use.
Warning: A plea crafted for criminal sentencing can still be disastrous for immigration. Coordination between criminal defense counsel and immigration counsel is often time-sensitive.
3) Timeline of key events
The timeline also reflects how federal prosecutions often develop over many months:
- June 7, 2025: Protest in Paramount; Molotov cocktail incident described by DOJ.
- June 11, 2025: DHS issued an early statement about the arrest and characterization of the case.
- October 2025: DOJ reported a guilty plea to the two federal counts.
- January 30, 2026: DOJ announced sentencing to 48 months in federal prison.
Why does pacing matter. Immigration custody decisions, detainers, and charging decisions may occur while the criminal case is pending.
Relief planning often must start before the plea.
Deadline watch: Criminal appeal deadlines are short. Post-conviction options can be even shorter. Ask counsel immediately about deadlines in your jurisdiction.
4) Official statements and quotes
DOJ’s January 30, 2026 announcement quoted Bill Essayli, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, emphasizing public safety and deterrence.
DOJ framed the conduct as endangering law enforcement and at least one lawful protester. DHS issued an earlier statement dated June 11, 2025, attributed to Tricia McLaughlin, DHS Assistant Secretary.
DHS used forceful language about immigration status and described the case as involving attempted murder allegations at that stage.
Readers should treat these statements differently for legal purposes. Agency quotes often signal enforcement posture and priorities. They do not substitute for the elements of the conviction or the plea record.
In immigration court, the decisive documents are typically the judgment, charging instrument, plea agreement, and plea colloquy.
For readers tracking how DHS and DOJ describe enforcement priorities, the DOJ press room and DHS announcements are primary sources. See DOJ press releases at [justice.gov]( and DHS materials at
5) Significance and potential impact
This prosecution matters in an immigration-enforcement protest context for three reasons.
First, federal jurisdiction and cross-agency coordination. When unrest occurs near immigration enforcement actions, federal authorities may rely on federal tools that reach beyond local assault statutes. The civil-disorder statute is one such tool.
Even if local deputies were involved, DOJ can frame interference as a federal public-order concern.
Second, collateral consequences for noncitizens are often severe. DOJ and DHS both described Garduño Gálvez as a Mexican national without lawful status.
If a noncitizen is convicted of a destructive-device offense, removability may arise under multiple INA provisions, depending on the statute of conviction and sentence.
- Firearms ground: INA § 237(a)(2)(C) covers convictions “under any law” of possessing, carrying, or using a firearm or destructive device.
- Aggravated felony ground: INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) applies when the conviction fits INA § 101(a)(43), including certain firearms offenses at INA § 101(a)(43)(E).
Even when litigated issues exist, the risk profile changes fast. Mandatory detention may apply for many individuals charged as aggravated felons. Some forms of relief may be barred, including asylum in many aggravated-felony scenarios.
Withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection may still be argued in some cases, but the standards are demanding.
Third, housing and employment can be affected even before removal. A federal arrest and detention can lead to missed rent and job loss. It can also affect household stability for U.S.-citizen family members.
These are practical, not legal, consequences, but they often shape case strategy.
Warning: Immigration consequences can flow from the statute of conviction, not the protest’s political message. Relief analysis turns on the conviction record.
6) Official government sources and references
For readers verifying the case posture, the DOJ sentencing press release dated January 30, 2026 is the clearest source for the final outcome, including the federal prison term and the counts of conviction.
DHS’s June 11, 2025 statement reflects early-stage framing around arrest and charging, and may not match the final plea posture. When available, court records are even more reliable than press releases.
Key items include the criminal complaint or indictment, plea agreement, judgment, and sentencing minutes. These documents are what immigration counsel typically needs to analyze removability and relief.
For general background on immigration court structure, see EOIR basics at [justice.gov/eoir](. For statutory text, Cornell’s Legal Information Institute is a useful reference point for federal law, including the INA, at [law.cornell.edu](.
Practical takeaways for noncitizens and counsel
- Destructive-device and civil-disorder convictions can trigger removability and detention exposure.
- The exact statute, elements, and record of conviction often control the immigration outcome.
- If a criminal case is pending, plea decisions should be evaluated for immigration impact before entry.
- In removal proceedings, counsel may need to litigate whether the conviction fits INA § 237(a)(2)(C) and whether it is an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(E).
- People facing both criminal custody and immigration holds should seek coordinated representation.
Strong consultation recommendation: anyone with a protest-related arrest, especially involving an alleged incendiary device like a Molotov cocktail, should speak to a qualified immigration attorney and a criminal defense attorney familiar with immigration consequences.
This is particularly urgent in California, where federal prosecutions and immigration enforcement often move in parallel.
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:
- [AILA Lawyer Referral]
