In a case that has sent shockwaves across the legal and immigration communities in the United States, former New Mexico Magistrate Judge Joel Cano and his wife Nancy Cano were arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for allegedly harboring an undocumented Venezuelan immigrant linked to the notorious Tren de Aragua gang.
This dramatic turn of events not only led to Cano’s resignation but also ignited intense public and legal scrutiny regarding how criminal affiliations are evaluated and prosecuted, particularly when it involves foreign nationals seeking asylum in the U.S.
The Discovery and ICE Raid in Las Cruces
The saga began in January 2025 when ICE received an anonymous tip claiming that a suspected member of a Venezuelan criminal gang was staying in the judge’s home located in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The tip included allegations that the individual was living alongside other undocumented immigrants and had access to firearms. This tip catalyzed a federal investigation, culminating in two search warrants executed at the Cano residence on February 28, 2025.
During the raid, ICE agents seized four guns and detained three immigrants residing at the property. One of them was identified as Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, a Venezuelan national and alleged member of the Tren de Aragua gang, a criminal group known for its violent and transnational operations. Notably, Ortega-Lopez had been residing in the Canos’ “casita,” a small guest house located on their property.
Read : Latrance Battle Arrested After Impersonating ICE Official to Arrest Her Ex-Boyfriend’s Wife
Authorities claim that Ortega-Lopez had posted photos on social media where he was seen posing with firearms—an image that further solidified the suspicion of his criminal affiliation.
Read : Gliding Across Frozen Paradises: 10 Ice Skating Destinations Around the World
Federal documents also indicate that Ortega-Lopez and other individuals staying at the Cano residence exhibited what investigators called “clear indicators” of gang affiliation, including specific tattoos, gang-related clothing, and hand gestures.
The Judge’s Resignation and the Legal Fallout
Shortly after the federal raid, Joel Cano resigned from his position as Magistrate Judge of Dona Ana County. In a heartfelt resignation letter, Cano insisted he had no prior knowledge of any gang affiliations linked to the individuals residing on his property.
“Let me be as crystal clear as possible,” Cano wrote. “The very first time I ever heard that the boys could possibly have any association with Tren de Aragua was when I was informed of that by agents on the day of the raid.”
Cano defended his actions by stating that each of the undocumented immigrants possessed immigration documents that explicitly indicated they were not subject to immediate removal. According to him, the paperwork bore the statement: “This Person is Not Subject to Removal,” along with scheduled court dates for their asylum hearings.
Joel Cano also cited his concern for family safety as a critical factor in his decision-making. “I have three grandkids that I love dearly. Their ages are 15, 8 and 6. There is no way in the world that I would have allowed my grandkids to have any contact with the boys if I had sensed danger,” he stated, emphasizing his belief that none of the men posed a threat.
Nevertheless, both Joel and Nancy Cano were arrested and charged with tampering with evidence, while Nancy was also accused of witness tampering for allowing Ortega-Lopez to reside on their property after his eviction in April 2024. Ortega-Lopez had been doing odd jobs for Nancy Cano since late 2023, which included installing a glass door in their home.
After becoming homeless, Nancy reportedly offered him temporary shelter in the casita—a decision that would later become the centerpiece of the criminal charges against the couple.
The Tren de Aragua Gang and U.S. Immigration Policy
This case also brings into focus the heightened scrutiny and complex methodology used by federal authorities to determine gang affiliations among undocumented immigrants, particularly Venezuelans. According to reports, ICE has relied on a scorecard known as the “Alien Enemies Act Validation Guide” to validate individuals as members of criminal gangs.
Under this controversial metric system, various indicators are assigned point values. Tattoos, for instance, are worth four points. An individual who scores eight or more points is “validated” as a gang member and becomes subject to deportation.
This tool has raised significant concerns among civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has argued that it relies too heavily on subjective or culturally misinterpreted markers like tattoos or clothing.
The ACLU has also criticized the Trump administration’s broader use of the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law dating back to 1798, to justify mass deportations of Venezuelan nationals suspected of being gang-affiliated.
In a bold application of this law, the administration recently deported dozens of Venezuelans to a high-security prison in El Salvador aboard three chartered planes. This action was taken even after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to prevent these deportations.
The administration justified its actions under the executive order, which stated that all Venezuelan citizens aged 14 and older associated with Tren de Aragua could be detained and deported unless they were naturalized or had lawful permanent residency.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the administration’s authority to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportation but also mandated that detainees must be given a chance to contest their removals in the local courts where they are being held.
Despite the court’s ruling, controversy continues to swirl, particularly after the judge found “probable cause” to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for disregarding the earlier restraining order.
Moral Complexity and Public Response
The Cano case has sparked intense debate about the responsibilities of citizens, especially public officials, in handling situations involving undocumented immigrants. While some see the Canos’ actions as a misguided attempt at kindness, others argue that they blatantly violated federal law and endangered public safety. The fact that Joel Cano was a sitting judge at the time of the alleged incident only adds to the gravity of the accusations.
Moreover, this incident has once again brought attention to the ever-blurring lines between humanitarian assistance and illegal harboring. Cano’s defense that the immigrants had legal paperwork and scheduled court dates highlights the often confusing and opaque nature of U.S. immigration law. Critics argue that ordinary citizens—much less judges—are often ill-equipped to interpret complex immigration documents and determine their legal implications.
The broader question remains: should individuals be criminally liable if they offer shelter to undocumented immigrants who may or may not have criminal affiliations, especially when those affiliations are inferred through debatable criteria like tattoos or social media posts?
The Canos’ arrest serves as a cautionary tale about the potential legal repercussions of such decisions, particularly in an era where immigration policy is closely tied to national security and public safety concerns. The case is now being closely watched across the country, as it is likely to set a precedent for how similar situations may be treated in the future.
As the legal proceedings unfold, both Joel and Nancy Cano face serious charges that could result in imprisonment. Meanwhile, Ortega-Lopez and the other detained individuals will face their own legal battles as the government works to validate or disprove their alleged gang affiliations.
What started as a simple act of charity, in the eyes of the Canos, has now spiraled into a federal criminal case with far-reaching implications for immigration policy, judicial ethics, and civil liberties in the United States.