What public information exists about the asylum case or CBP One entry for Liam Conejo Ramos and his father in immigration administrative records?
Executive summary
Public reporting indicates that lawyers and local school officials say Liam Conejo Ramos and his father presented themselves at a U.S. port of entry in December 2024 and used the CBP One app to request an asylum appointment, leaving the family with a pending asylum claim and no publicly known removal order, while ICE and DHS offer a conflicting account that the father was an “illegal alien” who abandoned the child during a targeted arrest [1] [2] [3]. There is no public release of the family’s underlying immigration administrative records or the CBP One entry itself in the sources provided; journalists rely on statements from the family’s attorney, school officials, and federal spokespeople [1] [4] [5].
1. What sources say the asylum claim exists and how it was filed
Multiple local news outlets report the family’s attorney, Marc Prokosch, saying the father and son presented themselves at the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry in December 2024 and used the CBP One app to request asylum and an appointment, and that the family has complied with immigration requirements and has a pending asylum case with no deportation order [1] [2] [6]. The Guardian and other outlets repeat Prokosch’s account that the family are Ecuadorian nationals who “presented themselves” and used CBP One to make an asylum claim [7] [8]. Those are attorney and school-district-based assertions reported by the press; the underlying CBP One record or asylum-filed documents are not published in these stories [1] [4].
2. What federal statements say, and how they differ
DHS and ICE publicly described the operation as a targeted arrest of the father and said agents attempted to reunify the child but that the father “ran away” or “abandoned” him; the department also characterized the father as in the country unlawfully, according to official statements quoted in multiple reports [5] [8] [3]. That account directly conflicts with the attorney’s representation that the family entered lawfully through a port of entry under CBP One and had no removal order [2] [1]. The media coverage therefore presents two competing narratives: the family’s legal-claim account (attorney and local school officials) and the enforcement account (DHS/ICE spokespeople) [2] [5].
3. What independent corroboration exists in the public record
Reported attempts at independent corroboration are limited: outlets note that Prokosch said he searched Minnesota criminal records and Ecuador’s Interior Ministry records and found no criminal history for the father, and local school officials say they have seen documents indicating immigration paperwork, but none of the reporting cites published immigration filings, CBP One logs, court dockets, or released agency arrest reports or body-worn camera footage made public so far [9] [4] [2]. Major outlets and local officials repeat the attorney’s description of a pending asylum case and the use of CBP One, but those are secondary claims rather than primary administrative records released into the public domain [6] [7].
4. What the reporting does not — and cannot — show from the available sources
None of the sources provided publishes or cites direct immigration administrative records, the actual CBP One appointment entry, a Notice to Appear, immigration court docket entries, or a DHS/ICE release of the family’s file; therefore, the precise administrative status, procedural posture, or contents of any asylum application remain unverified by primary documents in the public reporting cited here [1] [2] [8]. Given that gap, public knowledge about the case rests on statements from the family’s lawyer, school officials, and DHS/ICE spokespeople, each of whom have institutional or advocacy incentives that shape their accounts — attorneys and school leaders seek reunification and protection for the child, while DHS/ICE frame enforcement actions within policy and public-safety narratives [1] [4] [5].
5. Bottom line: what public information actually exists right now
Publicly available reporting shows consistent claims that the family used CBP One and has a pending asylum case with no identified deportation order, but those claims are reported secondhand via the family’s attorney and school officials rather than demonstrated by released immigration administrative documents; DHS/ICE provide a contradictory account about the father’s status and actions during the arrest, and no agency-produced administrative record or CBP One entry has been published in the sources provided to settle the dispute [1] [2] [5] [8].