The case of Liam Conejo Ramos, a five‑year‑old boy, has gone viral: he was detained by ICE agents in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and taken with his father to the Dilley detention center, located about an hour from San Antonio, Texas. The wide dissemination of the case prompted public statements in Ecuador and calls for state intervention, which, far from being beneficial, may have had adverse effects on the ongoing immigration proceedings.
In this blog, FindLaw analyzes the main legal implications of the case, both regarding the detention and the pending asylum application.
Background of the Case
Liam Conejo Ramos, who was born in Ecuador, and his father, Adrián Alexander Conejo Arias, were detained on January 20, 2026, in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, while they were returning home from school. The detention was carried out by ICE agents during immigration operations, which had escalated in Minneapolis and Saint Paul in the preceding weeks.
The family had entered the United States in December 2024 and presented themselves to border immigration agents in Texas to request asylum through the CBP One application, according to the family’s attorney, Marc Prokosch. The detention took place in the context of “Operation Metro Surge,” during which immigration authorities classified Adrian Conejo Arias as a “noncitizen in irregular immigration status.”
According to the official version, when immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) service agents approached the vehicle they were traveling in, the father allegedly fled on foot for fear of being detained, leaving the minor inside the car. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin further stated that Liam’s mother allegedly refused to take responsibility for him, despite several attempts by federal agents to get the person inside the residence to assume his care.
This version was rejected by Liam’s mother, Erika Ramos, who maintained that her husband did not flee or abandon his son and that, from outside, he told her not to open the door for fear that she too would be detained. According to her account, this was the reason she did not leave the home, despite hearing the child.
Subsequently, both the father and 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos were transferred to the Dilley family detention center in Texas, where they remained for eleven days. On January 31, 2026, a federal judge ordered their release. They are currently back in Minnesota with the rest of their family, and their asylum application is still pending. Some federal government officials have indicated they plan to appeal the release.
Public Statements and State Intervention
In the United States, asylum is granted to foreign nationals who cannot return to their country of origin because of past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
After the detention, several relatives made statements on social media and to national and international news outlets, recounting the events and requesting support from government authorities. While this kind of public pronouncement does not, by itself, invalidate an asylum application, it can be used by immigration authorities to question the coherence and strength of the well‑founded‑fear argument, especially if the statements suggest that the country of origin provides effective protection or that the alleged risk is not current.
In this context, Ecuador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued statements indicating that, after the case became public, it had contacted DHS to safeguard the child’s safety and well‑being. In public interviews, Foreign Minister Gabriela Sommerfeld stated that the State remained in constant contact with the family and that the consul in Minneapolis managed to communicate directly with Liam’s father.
However, the family’s attorney expressly requested that the Ecuadorian State not intervene and declined several meetings proposed by the Foreign Ministry, considering that active participation by the government of origin could be interpreted negatively in the pending asylum process and affect its outcome.
Judicial Intervention and Release Order
In response to the detention, the family filed a petition for habeas corpus before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This constitutional remedy, set out in Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, is intended to protect individuals from arbitrary or unlawful detentions.
On January 27, 2026, federal judge Fred Biery issued a temporary order prohibiting deportation or transfer outside the court’s jurisdiction while the legality of the detention was being resolved. Later, on January 31, the judge determined that there was not sufficient cause to justify the detention, finding that constitutional guarantees had been violated, in particular those related to due process, protected by the Fifth Amendment and developed in the case law applicable to non‑citizens.
In his ruling, the judge ordered the release of Liam and his father “as soon as possible.” He cited biblical passages that referred to the dignified treatment of children and foreigners. Both were released on February 1 and returned to Minneapolis. It should be emphasized that this judicial decision was limited exclusively to assessing the legality of the detention and did not resolve the merits of the asylum application.
The Trump administration stated that it might appeal the decision. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said that the government was analyzing its options, although he avoided speaking directly about the substance of the ruling.
In comments on ABC’s program “This Week,” Blanche explained that immigration law operates differently from the traditional criminal process because of its administrative nature and that, if deemed necessary, the government could challenge the court’s decision.
Current Status and Next Legal Steps
The central issue remains whether the family will be able to stay permanently in the United States. The recent events do not necessarily work in favor of their asylum application. The detention, by itself, does not harm the case; however, media exposure, public statements by relatives, and the willingness of the Ecuadorian government to provide support could be used by immigration authorities to question the existence of a well‑founded fear of persecution.
Even so, the family has factors in its favor. They entered the country in accordance with proper procedures and formalized their asylum application through the established channels, which strengthens their position compared to cases of irregular entry. In addition, the absence of a criminal record reduces the likelihood that the case will be treated as a priority for immediate deportation.
It is also worth highlighting the importance of having the assistance of an immigration attorney with experience in asylum cases. It is likely that the outcome would have been different without the timely filing of the habeas corpus petition, the careful strategy in the face of external interventions, and the proper use of the legal avenues available to challenge the detention.
The high media exposure of the case can have ambivalent effects. On the one hand, the authorities might choose not to act aggressively to avoid a negative reaction from public opinion. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that a negative decision will be accelerated as an exemplary measure.
Finally, this case has caused concern among people with pending asylum applications, given the possibility that raids or similar operations may be intensified. In an interview with NBC News, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was asked whether people with pending asylum claims could be deported. Her response was that, if it is legally appropriate, this could indeed happen.
Related Resources
- The Federal Court Cases Over DHS Immigration Crackdown and Deaths in Minnesota (FindLaw's Courtside)
- What Should I Do If ICE Detains Me and I am a U.S. Citizen? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Summarizing the Laws and Investigations In the Renee Nicole Good Shooting (FindLaw's Courtside)
