Rep. Tony Gonzales defends ICE custody of 5-year-old Liam Ramos as court blocks removal
A Minnesota detention case reaches South Texas
The detention of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, has become a high-profile test of federal immigration enforcement practices after the pair were taken into custody in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and transferred to a family detention facility in Dilley, roughly 70 miles southwest of San Antonio.
In recent public comments, U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, whose district includes Dilley and the region surrounding the South Texas Family Residential Center, defended the decision to keep the child in federal custody alongside his father. The defense comes as elected officials from Texas and outside the state have demanded the family’s release and sought greater access to the facility.
What is known about the detention
The boy and his father were detained on January 20, 2026, as they returned home from the child’s preschool. School officials and witnesses have described the encounter as traumatic and alleged that immigration officers used the child to prompt someone inside the home to open the door. Federal officials have disputed that characterization, saying the father fled and left the child in a running vehicle, and that agents took temporary custody of the child for safety.
After the detention, the father and son were transported to the Dilley facility, a large family detention center that reopened in 2025 under a federal contract after being idled in 2024. The facility is operated by a private contractor under federal oversight.
Court order temporarily halts removal or transfer
On January 26, 2026, a federal judge in Texas issued a temporary order barring the removal or transfer of Liam and his father while litigation challenging their detention proceeds. The order does not decide the underlying immigration claims but prevents immediate deportation or movement outside the court’s jurisdiction as the case advances.
Disputed legal status and the asylum timeline
Public statements from federal officials and the family’s legal representatives differ on the father’s immigration status. The family has been described as having an active asylum case, and court records indicate immigration proceedings were initiated in late 2024. The unresolved question—central to the current legal fight—is whether the family’s procedural posture required detention, and whether alternatives were available that would have avoided holding a preschool-aged child in a secure setting.
Political fallout and oversight pressure in Texas
Lawmakers have visited or attempted to visit the Dilley facility in recent days, and protests have been reported both outside and inside the center. In San Antonio, the case has intensified scrutiny of how quickly detainees can be transferred across state lines and how those transfers affect access to counsel and family contact.
The key factual disputes remain: whether officers had safe, workable options to leave the child with a caregiver, and whether detention conditions meet required standards for children.
Separately, the legal dispute now centers on custody authority, due-process claims, and whether transfer and detention decisions complied with governing policies and court oversight.
The case is expected to continue in federal court and immigration court in Texas as judges weigh custody decisions alongside the family’s pending immigration proceedings.