An immigration judge ordered the removal of Rafael Andres Rubio Bohorquez, a Venezuelan national and New York City Council employee, and the decision has ignited fierce criticism from city leaders who call it unjust while federal officials describe it as enforcement of the law.

The judge issued a final order of removal for 53-year-old Rafael Andres Rubio Bohorquez, and City Council Speaker Julie Menin announced she’ll appeal, calling the ruling a miscarriage of justice. Local officials moved quickly to challenge the decision and demand his release pending appeal. The appeal deadline is April 17, which sets a tight window for legal action.

“Today, an immigration judge ordered Rafael Andres Rubio Bohorquez, a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela and an employee of New York’s City Council, a final order of removal.”

“His criminal history includes an arrest for assault. This ruling is a victory for the rule of law. ICE will work as quickly as possible to return this criminal to his home country.”

Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the ruling “an affront to justice” and urged Rubio Bohorquez’s prompt release pending appeal. Mayor and Council statements framed the detention as a mistake and stressed the employee’s public service. That political response shifted attention away from the underlying facts documented by federal authorities.

Federal records show Rubio Bohorquez entered the U.S. in 2017 on a B2 tourist visa that required his departure the same year, but he did not leave. Officials say he overstayed, lacked work authorization, and served as a data analyst for the City Council for roughly one year without proper documentation. He also has an arrest for assault on his record, which factored into the judge’s removal order.

Mamdani posted on social media a defense of Rubio Bohorquez that sharply contrasts with the federal account. His message claimed the man had legal authorization and was detained despite “following the rules,” a phrase that doesn’t match the timeline federal officials describe. The discrepancy highlights a deeper clash over how local leaders interpret immigration compliance.

“A dedicated public servant with legal authorization to remain in the country, Rafael showed up for a routine immigration appointment and, despite following the rules, he was detained and has now been held for months.”

Speaker Menin has argued the deportation hinges on a procedural matter tied to an asylum filing and described the situation as fixable. She characterized the issue as a technical error that should not determine his fate and said it could be corrected quickly. Those claims include an assertion that he had been “cleared to remain” through October 2026, which remains a contested point as the legal process moves forward.

“Today’s ruling appears to hinge on a procedural issue related to his asylum application.”

“That is extremely troubling. A technical error should not determine the fate of a man who has done everything right and poses no risk to anyone.”

Menin escalated the public push, demanding immediate release while the appeal proceeds and insisting the case receive a “proper” hearing by the April 17 deadline. Her statement calls for detention to end while attorneys address the procedural claim and file appeal paperwork. That stance frames detention itself as unacceptable despite the existence of a final removal order.

“Let me be clear: Rafael should not continue to be detained while this is sorted out. An appeal will be filed, and we demand that Rafael’s case be properly heard by the deadline on April 17. At a minimum, he should be released pending that appeal. There is no justification for continuing to hold him under these circumstances.”

Saying “no justification” to hold someone with a final removal order, an assault arrest, and years of unlawful presence is a political claim, not a legal one. Local leaders are framing immigration enforcement as inherently unjust rather than focusing on how the situation arose. That leaves critical questions about municipal hiring and oversight unanswered.

This episode exposes how deeply the sanctuary posture runs through city government when scrutiny falls on municipal hiring practices. An individual without federal work authorization reportedly ended up on the city payroll, yet the political reaction targeted federal enforcement instead of internal checks. Officials did not first explain how a background and eligibility review failed to flag his status.

• An illegal immigrant is identified and detained through lawful process.
• City officials immediately cast the individual as a victim.
• The enforcement action is framed as unjust regardless of the underlying facts.
• No accountability is directed at the local failures that created the situation.

Instead of asking why hiring systems missed the problem or why verification failed, political leaders quickly blamed Washington for doing its job. Their rhetoric treats enforcement as the problem while the city’s role in creating the circumstance gets little attention. That pattern undermines honest debate about policy and public safety.

An immigration judge reviewed the record and issued a final order of removal, and that is the judicial system functioning as designed. The immigration system evaluates claims, determines status, and enforces removals when the law requires it. If outcomes are inconvenient, officials should argue the law, not demand exceptions for consequences.

Rubio Bohorquez will have an opportunity to appeal and his attorneys have until April 17 to act, so the legal process remains in motion. Due process is available through the courts and administrative appeals, and the timeline is clear. What some New York leaders object to is not a lack of procedure but the fact that violating immigration rules produced real consequences.