Federal prosecutors said a man convicted of murder had to stay in immigration custody. A Nevada judge ordered him released into the community instead.
Who Was Released, and Why It Matters
According to a detailed report by Fox News, U.S. District Judge Richard F. Boulware II recently ordered the release of Harvey Laureano-Rosales, a 54-year-old citizen of El Salvador who has lived in the United States since the late 1980s.
Laureano-Rosales entered the country without authorization around 1987 when he was about 16, Fox News reported, citing court documents. Those filings state that he later joined the MS-13 gang and went on to commit a series of violent offenses. He was eventually convicted in Nevada of multiple gang-related crimes, including first-degree murder. Public reporting so far has not detailed the underlying homicide case, the victim, or the full sentencing history.
State authorities granted him parole in November 2022, again according to Fox News. Within days of that parole, Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into federal custody. He remained there for roughly two and a half years while immigration proceedings and appeals played out.
At some point during those proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed the government to proceed with his removal, which triggered what immigration law describes as a mandatory detention period for certain people ordered removed from the United States. The federal government treats that period as required by statute under 8 U.S.C. 1231, which governs detention during the removal process.
The Public Safety Case From Federal Prosecutors
The Nevada U.S. attorney’s office has been blunt about its view of the release. In a statement quoted by Fox News, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Sigal Chattah said her office would seek further legal action and framed the situation as a community safety issue.
“Our office remains committed to protecting public safety and enforcing the law remain top priorities,” Chattah wrote. “In this matter, however, the outcome results in the release of a convicted murderer and known MS-13 gang member into the community, raising serious public-safety concerns.”
She added, “We are deeply troubled by the risks posed to the public and will continue to pursue all lawful avenues to address those concerns and safeguard the community.”
Prosecutors also stressed what they see as a legal conflict. Fox News reported that the U.S. attorney’s office said Laureano-Rosales is subject to a final order of removal from the United States. Under federal law, people with final removal orders who fall into certain categories, including many with serious criminal records, are typically held in custody during the removal period. That interpretation flows from 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2), which courts have often described as mandating detention for some noncitizens with specific criminal histories.
The Supreme Court confirmed the breadth of that authority in Jennings v. Rodriguez, holding that the immigration statutes allow prolonged detention without automatic bond hearings for certain groups. At the same time, the Court has said there are limits on indefinite detention in cases where removal is not reasonably foreseeable, as in Zadvydas v. Davis.
In the Nevada case, federal prosecutors are arguing that releasing a person they describe as a “known MS-13 gang member” runs against both the text of the law and the public safety aims the detention framework is supposed to serve.
Obama-appointed Judge Richard Boulware II ordered the release of 54-year-old Harvey Laureano Rosales — identified as an MS-13 member, convicted of murder, and subject to a final removal order — in a move that prevents ICE from carrying out his deportation. pic.twitter.com/PlvfiNyKC8
— Lib…Debunker (@topguncarguy) January 24, 2026
The Defense Argument: Due Process and Destination
Why did the judge order release at all, given that backdrop? On that point, the public record is thinner.
Fox News, citing court documents, reported that Laureano-Rosales’s attorneys accused the federal government of attempting to deport him to Mexico without following proper procedures and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, often referred to as the APA. The report states that this alleged due process problem prompted the court to order his release from ICE custody.
The APA, codified at 5 U.S.C. 551-559, sets out how federal agencies must act when they make decisions that affect individuals, including providing notice, an opportunity to be heard in specific contexts, and a reasoned explanation for their actions. Courts can set aside agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
In this case, based solely on the Fox News report, it appears that defense attorneys argued the government tried to remove Laureano-Rosales to a country that is not his own, Mexico, without the process they say is due under immigration statutes and the APA. It is not yet clear from public reporting what specific legal findings Judge Boulware made about that claim, what factual record he relied on, or whether he concluded that the only workable remedy was release from custody.
Attorneys for Laureano-Rosales also contend that he is no longer active in MS-13 or the Mexican Mafia and that he was not previously deported under the Biden administration because of credible fears he would be tortured or killed if forced to return to El Salvador or Mexico, according to Fox News. Those assertions connect to protections available under U.S. law and international agreements such as the Convention Against Torture, summarized in guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on withholding of removal and CAT protection.
How ‘Mandatory’ Detention Works in Practice
Both sides are invoking the word mandatory. The government points to mandatory detention statutes. Defense lawyers appear to be arguing that mandatory procedural protections were not followed when officials tried to carry out the removal order.
Immigration law draws several lines that matter here:
Item 1: Noncitizens with certain criminal convictions can be held without bond during their removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c).
Item 2: Once a final order of removal is entered, a distinct removal period begins, during which the person is generally supposed to be detained, under 1231(a)(2).
However, practice is less rigid than the word mandatory suggests. Courts have recognized constitutional limits on how long someone can be detained if the government cannot realistically carry out removal. In addition, administrative decisions must comply with statutes, regulations, and the APA. When judges conclude that agencies have violated those requirements, they have the authority to halt or unwind agency actions.
The Fox News report does not indicate that Judge Boulware has publicly released a lengthy written opinion in this case. Without that opinion, the precise legal route he used to move from a conceded final removal order to an order for immediate release is not fully visible to the public.
Risk Assessments, Gang Allegations, and Community Impact
Another unresolved issue is how anyone has assessed the current risk posed by Laureano-Rosales. Prosecutors describe him as a “known MS-13 gang member” with a “violent criminal career.” Those characterizations appear to come from his decades of criminal history and gang affiliation described in the court documents Fox News reviewed.
MS-13 has been a long-running focus of federal law enforcement, including the FBI’s work on violent street gangs, which includes specific attention to MS-13 activity in the United States and Central America, as described in the bureau’s public materials. That history explains, in part, why prosecutors emphasize the label when they discuss this case.
Defense attorneys, by contrast, are telling the court that Laureano-Rosales is no longer involved with MS-13 or the Mexican Mafia. As of the Fox News report, there was no public description of any recent validated gang activity, risk assessment tools, or supervised release conditions that might support or contradict either side’s claim about present danger.
It is also not yet clear from public reporting whether the judge considered structured supervision, electronic monitoring, or other conditions instead of continued immigration detention, or whether the order required any specific safeguards while the government pursues further legal steps.
What Comes Next
The Nevada U.S. attorney’s office has said it intends to “pursue all lawful avenues” to respond to the release. That likely includes potential appeals, renewed detention arguments based on different legal theories, or attempts to remedy whatever procedural defects the judge may have identified. The specifics will only become clear if new filings or decisions are made public.
For now, the record available to the public comes mainly from one detailed news report and brief official statements. Key pieces remain out of view: the judge’s complete legal reasoning, the government’s internal risk assessments, and any independent evaluation of whether Laureano-Rosales can safely be removed to another country. Until those documents surface, the tension between a federal judge’s due process ruling and prosecutors’ warnings about public safety will continue to rest on partial information.
