DHS says the arrested NYC employee overstayed a B2 visa and lacked legal status

Unclear

Evidence is incomplete or still developing; a future update may resolve it. Learn more in Methodology.

Interesting: 0/0 • Support: 0/0Log in to vote

enforcement

Immigration entry/visa records and DHS/ICE records confirm the B2 entry in 2017, the October 22, 2017 required departure date, and that the individual lacked legal immigration status.

Source summary
DHS announced the arrest of Rafael Andres Rubio Bohorquez, a Venezuelan national employed by the New York City Council who entered the U.S. on a B2 tourist visa in 2017 and overstayed, had no work authorization, and has a prior arrest for assault. The release highlights this case as one of several recent arrests of unauthorized immigrants working in government roles, citing earlier ICE actions that detained a former Hanover Park police officer and a Des Moines school superintendent. DHS officials framed the arrests as part of targeted enforcement operations, including references to Operation Midway Blitz.
Latest fact check

Available evidence confirms that ICE is asserting these facts—that Rubio entered the U.S. on a B‑2 tourist visa in 2017, was required to depart by October 22, 2017, and that he has “no legal right to be in the United States”—and multiple reputable outlets report ICE’s statement in essentially that form. However, there is an active legal dispute over his current immigration status and work authorization: a habeas corpus petition describes him as an asylum seeker with no criminal record, and New York City officials say he was legally allowed to remain and work through October while his case proceeded, directly contesting DHS’s characterization. Because the underlying immigration records (his I‑94, asylum filings, or any grant of authorization to remain/work) are not public and the matter is before a federal court, it is not currently possible to definitively verify whether he in fact “had no legal right” to be in the U.S., beyond reproducing the competing claims.

The verdict is Unclear because key primary immigration records and the habeas petition’s full factual allegations are not publicly accessible yet, and there is an ongoing legal process directly contesting ICE’s assertion about Rubio’s legal right to be in the United States.

0 seconds

Timeline

  1. Scheduled follow-up · Jan 20, 2026overdue
  2. Completion due · Jan 20, 2026
  3. Update · Jan 14, 2026, 08:42 AMUnclear
    Available evidence confirms that ICE is asserting these facts—that Rubio entered the U.S. on a B‑2 tourist visa in 2017, was required to depart by October 22, 2017, and that he has “no legal right to be in the United States”—and multiple reputable outlets report ICE’s statement in essentially that form. However, there is an active legal dispute over his current immigration status and work authorization: a habeas corpus petition describes him as an asylum seeker with no criminal record, and New York City officials say he was legally allowed to remain and work through October while his case proceeded, directly contesting DHS’s characterization. Because the underlying immigration records (his I‑94, asylum filings, or any grant of authorization to remain/work) are not public and the matter is before a federal court, it is not currently possible to definitively verify whether he in fact “had no legal right” to be in the U.S., beyond reproducing the competing claims. The verdict is Unclear because key primary immigration records and the habeas petition’s full factual allegations are not publicly accessible yet, and there is an ongoing legal process directly contesting ICE’s assertion about Rubio’s legal right to be in the United States.
  4. Original article · Jan 13, 2026

Comments

Only logged-in users can comment.
Loading…