An immigration judge has ordered the deportation of a former New York City Council employee whom federal authorities identified as an undocumented immigrant with a prior criminal record.
The ruling, announced Wednesday by City Council Speaker Julie Menin, brings to a head a two-month dispute between local New York officials and federal immigration authorities over the case of Rafael Andres Rubio Bohorquez, a 53-year-old Venezuelan national.
Menin condemned the deportation order as a “miscarriage of justice and wholly deplorable” and pledged to file an appeal on behalf of Rubio Bohorquez, who worked as a data analyst for the City Council for approximately one year.
The case began in January when Rubio Bohorquez was detained during what was described as a routine immigration appointment. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently identified him as a Venezuelan national who had overstayed his visa and possessed no legal work authorization. Federal officials also noted a prior arrest for assault in his record.
According to DHS, Rubio Bohorquez maintained employment with the New York City Council despite lacking authorization to work in the United States. The agency characterized him as a “criminal illegal alien” in official statements regarding his detention.
Local officials have vigorously contested the federal government’s characterization of the case. Both Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Speaker Menin have insisted that Rubio Bohorquez possessed legal authorization to remain in the United States and to work during his employment with the City Council.
Judge Conroy’s deportation order has intensified the conflict between city and federal authorities over immigration enforcement. Menin stated that city officials would “continue to pursue every legal avenue to secure his release and ensure his case is properly heard on appeal.”
Mayor Mamdani described the ruling as “an affront to justice,” defending Rubio Bohorquez as “a dedicated public servant with legal authorization to remain in the country” who simply attended a routine immigration appointment.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between municipal governments in sanctuary jurisdictions and federal immigration enforcement agencies. New York City has long maintained policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, arguing that such cooperation undermines trust between immigrant communities and local government.
The dispute also raises questions about employment verification procedures for government positions and the extent to which local authorities verify federal immigration status for their employees.
As the appeal process moves forward, the case stands as another flashpoint in the broader national debate over immigration enforcement, with local officials pledging continued resistance to what they view as unjust federal action against a city employee they maintain was lawfully present in the United States.
Related: Intelligence Director Defends Role in Iran Assessment and Domestic Observation
