Judge dismisses California deportation case for Mexican father of 3 US Marines

Lead

On Jan. 28 an immigration judge terminated the deportation proceedings against Narciso Barranco, a 49-year-old landscaper arrested in Santa Ana in June, clearing a pathway for him to seek lawful permanent residency in the United States. Barranco, who came to the U.S. from Mexico in the 1990s and does not have formal legal status, is the father of three U.S.-born sons who have served in the Marine Corps. He was arrested during a widely viewed encounter outside an IHOP and later released on a $3,000 bond in July, subject to an ankle monitor and regular check-ins. The Department of Homeland Security has said it will appeal the judge’s order.

Key Takeaways

• An immigration judge on Jan. 28 terminated deportation proceedings against Narciso Barranco, 49, after he presented evidence that he is the father of three U.S.-born Marines.
• Barranco was detained in June in Santa Ana after federal agents subdued him outside an IHOP; videos of the arrest circulated widely and spurred local protests.
• He was released in July on a $3,000 bond and required to wear an ankle monitor; immigration officers later removed the monitor after the judge’s order.
• Barranco’s attorney, Lisa Ramirez, says he has no criminal record and has applied for Parole in Place, a pathway that could allow him to obtain a work permit and pursue permanent residency.
• The Department of Homeland Security announced it would appeal the judge’s decision, citing claims that an agent was threatened during the encounter.
• Barranco’s son Alejandro is a Marine Corps veteran who left the service in 2023; two other sons are active-duty Marines.
• Ramirez estimates that, if approved, the Parole in Place petition could take roughly six months or longer before work authorization and adjustment benefits follow.

Background

The incident unfolded against a broader backdrop of intensified immigration enforcement and public scrutiny of immigration raids. Video of Barranco’s detention in Santa Ana—an Orange County city with a large immigrant population—was shared online and became a focal point for local protests and criticism of enforcement tactics. The arrest occurred while Barranco was working as a landscaper, an occupation commonly held by undocumented immigrants in the region, and community advocates framed the case as part of a pattern of immigration policing that disproportionately affects people of color.

Parole in Place is a long-standing, discretionary policy intended to protect certain family members of U.S. service members and veterans by granting temporary lawful presence without requiring an applicant to depart the United States. The program has been used in prior administrations to shield military families from deportation and to create a route to lawful status. At the same time, immigration enforcement priorities and appeals by federal prosecutors can complicate outcomes even when discretionary relief is available.

Main Event

In June, federal agents confronted Narciso Barranco as he cleared weeds outside an IHOP in Santa Ana; witnesses uploaded videos showing officers wrestling him to the ground. Authorities took Barranco into custody and transferred him to a Los Angeles detention center, where he was placed into removal proceedings. In July a judge released him on a $3,000 bond and required electronic monitoring and periodic check-ins while the case advanced.

On Jan. 28 Judge Kristin S. Piepmeier issued an order terminating the deportation case after Barranco provided documentation showing he is the father of three U.S.-born sons who served in the Marine Corps, which made him eligible to apply for Parole in Place. Barranco’s lawyer, Lisa Ramirez, said federal officers have since removed his ankle monitor and discontinued the scheduled check-ins, and that her client feels “extreme relief.” Counsel estimates the administrative steps toward a green card could take six months or more if the parole petition is approved.

The Department of Homeland Security said it would appeal the judge’s termination of proceedings and issued a statement asserting that agents believed Barranco did not comply with commands and that an agent’s safety was at risk during the encounter. DHS officials characterized the force used as appropriate and consistent with training, and they signaled their intent to challenge the judge’s factual or legal findings in the appellate process.

Analysis & Implications

The judge’s termination underscores how family ties to active-duty or veteran members of the U.S. military can change the legal calculus in immigration cases. Parole in Place is discretionary and not an automatic remedy, but evidence linking an applicant to military family members often strengthens an applicant’s claim to relief. If Barranco’s parole petition is approved and he adjusts status, the case may serve as a reference point for other military families seeking similar protection.

DHS’s decision to appeal signals a continuing legal contest that could clarify how aggressively federal authorities will challenge parole-based relief in the current enforcement climate. An appeal could focus on factual disputes about the arrest or on legal interpretations of eligibility for parole and adjustment of status. A successful DHS appeal could limit the practical reach of Parole in Place in similar confrontations; an unsuccessful appeal would reinforce judicial discretion to terminate removal when qualifying family relationships are shown.

The episode also carries political and social implications beyond Barranco’s case. Video-recorded arrests that gain public attention often mobilize community advocacy and local officials, potentially shaping prosecutorial discretion and case outcomes. For military families, the case highlights tensions between enforcement priorities and national interest arguments that favor keeping close relatives of service members in the United States.

Comparison & Data

The timeline shows a standard progression from arrest to detention, release on bond, and judicial resolution that opens an administrative avenue for relief. Counsel’s estimate of a six-month-plus wait for Parole in Place adjudication is consistent with discretionary immigration processes, which can vary widely by caseload and agency resources.

Reactions & Quotes

Family, counsel and government officials offered sharply different portrayals of the encounter and its aftermath. Barranco and his supporters described relief at the judge’s order, while DHS emphasized officer safety and intention to appeal.

“I feel happy. Thank God I don’t have that weight on top of me.”

Narciso Barranco (phone interview, Spanish)

This brief remark conveyed Barranco’s emotional response after the judge’s ruling; he also told reporters he is staying mostly at home until his paperwork is finalized. Family members had previously told the press that he is hardworking and nonviolent, and his son Alejandro criticized the use of force as inconsistent with military training.

“He has had zero criminal history. The aggressive nature of the apprehension, it was traumatic.”

Lisa Ramirez (Barranco’s attorney)

Ramirez framed the arrest as an overreach and emphasized her client’s lack of a criminal record. She described legal steps taken on Barranco’s behalf, including a Parole in Place petition that, if granted, would permit him to obtain a work authorization and apply for adjustment of status.

“The agents took appropriate action and followed their training to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve the situation in a manner that prioritizes the safety of the public and our officers.”

Tricia McLaughlin, DHS Assistant Secretary (agency statement)

DHS’s statement, cited by law enforcement spokespeople, asserted that its personnel acted within policy and that the government will pursue an appeal of the judge’s order. That position frames the next phase as a legal contest rather than a settled administrative outcome.

Unconfirmed

• The claim that Barranco swung his weed trimmer at an agent during the arrest remains contested in public accounts and was asserted by DHS; independent verification of that specific action is not documented in available public records.
• The exact timeline for Parole in Place approval and adjustment to permanent residency is uncertain; counsel’s six-month estimate is an informed projection rather than a guaranteed schedule.
• Details about why Barranco was selected for enforcement at that particular time—beyond his immigration status—have not been fully disclosed by authorities in publicly available statements.

Bottom Line

The judge’s termination of deportation proceedings for Narciso Barranco highlights how family ties to U.S. service members can materially affect immigration outcomes. While the ruling creates a plausible route to work authorization and eventual permanent residency through Parole in Place, the Department of Homeland Security’s announced appeal means the legal status remains contested.

Observers should watch the appeal process and the administrative adjudication of Barranco’s Parole in Place petition to understand whether this case will stand as a precedent for similar military-family cases or be narrowed by appellate review. Regardless of the ultimate legal outcome, the episode has already influenced community debate over enforcement tactics and protections for military families.

Sources

• Associated Press (news report)