During his State of the Union address last month, President Donald Trump said the United States “will always allow people to come in legally.”
Yet for some immigrants, following a legal process has still ended in expulsion.
Last October, *Hugo attended what he believed was one of his final immigration appointments in his process for permanent residency in Colorado. In November, *Pedro appeared at a routine check-in with immigration authorities in Phoenix as he attempted to proceed with his family’s request for asylum.
Instead of moving the cases forward, authorities transported the two men to detention centers and subsequently deported them to the Mexican border town of Nogales, Sonora.
Their cases underscore the reality of the U.S. immigration system: Even immigrants who comply with the law can face removal. Individuals often remain vulnerable to deportation for a range of reasons, including financial limitations, prior deportations and the complexity of the U.S. immigration system.
Many repatriated individuals in Arizona are deported through the Dennis DeConcini Port of Entry, seen here from the Sonoran side. From there, Mexican immigration authorities transport people to a government-run shelter in Nogales, Sonora for temporary refuge.
What’s more, decisions about whether a person can enter or remain in the country ultimately come down to the sole discretion of immigration authorities, according to John Mitchell, an immigrants’ rights attorney with the ACLU of Arizona.
“That’s something that I don’t think a lot of U.S. citizens understand when they talk about immigrants ‘doing things the right way,’” he said. “Not only is it complicated and costly to navigate the immigration system, (but) even when somebody does everything according to the letter of the law, they can still be denied entry or lawful status at the discretion of an individual immigration judge or officer.”
Vulnerable to expulsion despite lawful presence
Hugo and Pedro were both lawfully present in the United States, but neither had permanent legal status when they were deported. That distinction can make immigrants especially vulnerable to removal.
“This is a really important point of distinction: Just because you’re in removal proceedings does not mean you’re in the country illegally,” said Noah Schramm, former policy strategist for the ACLU of Arizona. “But many forms of lawful presence do not provide permanent protection from deportation.”
Regular cross-border life bustles outside a Mexican immigration office in Nogales, Sonora, just steps away from a U.S port of entry. Both *Hugo and *Pedro found temporary refuge in the border city while they grappled with the aftermath of their deportations.
Pedro, a husband and father of two from central Mexico, was granted permission to enter the United States with his family in January 2025 while they pursued an asylum claim.
In his home state of Morelos, he said, residents faced constant threats and extortion from a local drug cartel. When his mother-in-law could no longer pay the cartel a recurring fee to operate her small business, Pedro feared his family could become a target.
“Everyday, there was another person killed at the hands of the cartel,” Pedro said of his home region. “My wife and I were afraid that the cartel would target our family because she’s the eldest daughter.”
U.S. law allows people to qualify for asylum if they fear “persecution from a person or organization that their home country’s government is unwilling or unable to control,” Mitchell said.
With a vague understanding of that in mind, Pedro and his wife fled north with their 5-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter.
Hugo’s path was different. He left the Mexican state of Guerrero at the age of 16 after his sister urged him to seek a better life abroad. He met his wife, a U.S. citizen, about 10 years ago and started his green card application. While the case was pending, he received authorization to work in the United States.
As one of his final immigration appointments approached, Hugo began seeing headlines about deportations under the Trump administration and became increasingly worried.
“My wife said we had nothing to fear because I hadn’t committed any crimes,” Hugo said. “But they lured us into the lion’s den.
Cases close with unfavorable outcomes
Legal guidance can make a critical difference in immigration cases – particularly for people with prior deportation orders – but outcomes often hinge on the discretion of immigration authorities.
“As a matter of fact, in immigration proceedings, the government has at least as much discretion as in criminal proceedings,” Mitchell said.
Immigration cases are civil, not criminal, proceedings that can result in expulsion from the country. Consequently, many constitutional protections – such as a guaranteed attorney, speedy trial, and bond hearing for criminal defendants – do not extend to those in immigration proceedings. And even small details in someone’s immigration history can carry major consequences for the final outcome.
Hugo said his immigration attorney assured his family they had followed every legal step in his green card application. Still, that wasn’t enough. Authorities informed him that an old deportation order from 2005 outweighed his more recent effort to obtain legal status through his marriage.
“How had they given me permission to work if my deportation history was an issue?” Hugo said, frustration evident in his voice.
However, Hugo hasn’t lost hope of returning to Colorado. “I’m a man of faith. I have hope and that’ll be the last thing I lose. In the meantime, I just have to wait,” he said.
*Pedro said he was detained and deported after appearing at an immigration check-in at an ICE office in Phoenix. His wife, who accompanied him that day, was allowed to return home with an ankle monitor attached to her leg.
Pedro’s family, on the other hand, faced even steeper obstacles. Unable to afford legal help, they navigated the asylum process largely on their own and said authorities provided little guidance on how to proceed. Pedro said officials ultimately cited a prior deportation order and his failure to file required paperwork within a one-year deadline – a step he was entirely unaware of.
He spent roughly three months in a detention center before being deported.
His wife and two young children remained in Phoenix, struggling with language barriers, limited finances and no authorization for her to work in the United States. Pedro also feared that his wife could be subjected to the inhumane conditions of a detention center and, worse, separated from their children.
To avoid that possibility, the family chose to return to Mexico and reunited in Nogales, Sonora in mid-February.
Broad discretion and limited oversight
Hugo said his wife remains in the United States and has tried to continue his legal case, but the couple struggles to navigate the system. Mitchell noted it can be even more challenging for applicants to fight their cases from a foreign country.
ICE regularly uses white buses, such as this one parked at the Dennis DeConcini Port of Entry in Nogales, to carry out deportations in Arizona.
“Because of the amount of time that can elapse between old immigration proceedings and new ones… it can get really messy and overwhelming, and near impossible for somebody to get a complete picture of what might have happened before,” Mitchell said.
While there are procedures that allow applicants to reopen their cases, it is an exceedingly difficult legal process, even with the help of an attorney. And in recent years, even the most minimal safeguards have not been upheld – particularly with the Trump administration.
Broad discretionary power that immigration enforcement agencies hold can also move cases quickly. Even when immigrants have legal representation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can deport someone before their lawyer has a chance to intervene.
“There needs to be strong oversight that reins in DHS's far-reaching discretion that too often ruins people's lives,” Schramm added. “But more than that, there need to be fundamental reforms in immigration law that create viable pathways for immigrants – many who have been here for decades – to build a life in this country without fear.”
*Names were changed for privacy and security purposes
