A federal judge in New Jersey has ordered the release of a Colombian man from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. The decision was based on findings that ICE violated his due process rights by preventing him from leaving the United States under a voluntary departure order and then arguing for his detention because he failed to depart by the court-imposed deadline.
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz issued a six-page order, determining that Marlon Andres Torres Gomez was prepared to leave before the June 11 deadline set by an immigration judge. However, he remained in the U.S. due to continued detention by ICE, according to court documents.
This ruling is among a growing number of judicial rebukes. Judges have criticized the administration and ICE concerning the treatment of detainees, while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has dismissed several decisions as the work of ‘activist judges.’ The court’s decision adversely impacts the Trump administration’s handling of Torres Gomez’s case, asserting that ICE cannot prevent a migrant from adhering to a voluntary departure order and then use this as grounds for further detention.
The process known as ‘self-deportation,’ allowing migrants to leave voluntarily rather than face formal removal orders, has been supported by the administration through financial incentives. Torres Gomez was granted voluntary departure on May 12, with a departure deadline of June 11.
Court records reveal that Torres Gomez repeatedly tried to coordinate his departure with ICE before the deadline. His attorney contacted immigration officials multiple times and stressed the need for assistance in arranging travel. Torres Gomez even purchased a one-way ticket from New York to Colombia for a June 10 departure.
After June 11, the government argued that Torres Gomez, having not left the country, was subject to final removal and mandatory detention under federal immigration law. They also suggested possible statutory penalties due to non-compliance with the voluntary departure order.
Judge Farbiarz rejected ICE’s claims, finding Torres Gomez remained in the U.S. because immigration officials kept him detained, preventing him from boarding his June 10 flight intended to comply with the court order.
Farbiarz concluded Torres Gomez’s post-June 11 detention lacked meaningful process, violating constitutional due process protections. The court scrutinized and dismissed three government explanations for Torres Gomez’s continued detention.
First, the government claimed injunctions in earlier habeas cases prevented his departure, which Farbiarz disputed. He stated these cases were closed before the deadline and did not hinder Torres Gomez from self-deporting.
Second, the government proposed extending his departure period post-deadline. Farbiarz dismissed this, indicating the extension was proposed after the original deadline had expired.
Lastly, immigration officials argued detention preserved Torres Gomez’s right to appeal the judge’s decision. The court found little evidence for this claim, noting Torres Gomez expressed a desire to leave and informed ICE officials he did not wish to appeal.
Amidst intensifying scrutiny of the Trump administration’s immigration detention policies, Judge Farbiarz’s decision partly relies on the Supreme Court ruling in Monsalvo v. Bondi. This 2025 case held that voluntary departure grants make detention and removal dependent on a noncitizen remaining in the country post-departure period.
Farbiarz determined this did not apply as Torres Gomez was detained, thus prevented from voluntarily leaving his purchased flight. He emphasized that detention under these circumstances would convert the government’s due-process violation into grounds for mandatory detention.
The court ordered Torres Gomez’s prompt release from immigration custody, assuming his immediate steps to leave the U.S. voluntarily upon release. The judge did not comment on future lawful detention if Torres Gomez continued staying in the country. Previously, an immigration judge assessed Torres Gomez as not a community danger in bond considerations, a point uncontested by the parties involved.