A federal judge has ordered the government to explain why it is still holding Lorenzo Chavez Rascon, a 22-year-old man arrested in a suspected Utah drug sale after the material in the case was later identified as dried pinto beans.
The dispute now reaches far beyond the failed narcotics suspicion that first put Chavez Rascon in jail. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby blocked immigration officials from removing him from the country, found that his challenge to continued detention is likely to succeed, and set fast deadlines for the government to justify its actions. At the center of the fight is whether ICE can keep Chavez Rascon locked up after the state case vanished while his immigration status remained under separate review through an asylum case and a pending U visa petition.
According to Shelby’s March 11 order, Chavez Rascon entered the United States with his family in 2017 as a minor and presented an asylum claim at the border. While that case continued in immigration court, he also applied for a U visa, a form of temporary relief for certain people who help law enforcement. On Feb. 7, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services found his petition bona fide. On Feb. 23, Utah authorities arrested him in what they believed was a drug sale. The suspected drugs were later identified as beans, and the state never filed charges. While Chavez Rascon was being held in the Salt Lake County Jail, ICE placed a detainer on him. He filed a habeas petition on Feb. 25. After the state case was dismissed, ICE took custody of him, and his lawyers filed an amended petition and an emergency request for court intervention on March 3.
What happened next drove Shelby’s ruling. At a March 9 hearing, the judge wrote, government lawyers said they were still deciding whether Chavez Rascon should receive deferred action tied to his U visa filing, but they could not clearly explain why that protection would be denied or revoked. They also could not promise he would not be removed while the habeas case was pending. Chavez Rascon’s lawyer, Alec Bracken, told the court he had not been told where his client was being held and had not been given a way to communicate with him. In later reporting, Bracken described the search in blunt terms: “I couldn’t find him.” The public order also leaves major questions open. It does not say what first led Utah officers to suspect a drug sale, does not identify any separate federal offense, and does not spell out a clear, current basis for continued detention beyond the failed state arrest.
That gap matters because Chavez Rascon’s immigration case did not begin with the February arrest. Shelby wrote that Chavez Rascon had a removal order that was already in the appeals process when USCIS found his U visa petition bona fide. Under USCIS rules, when the annual cap on U visas has been met, otherwise eligible petitioners can be placed on a waiting list and may receive deferred action or parole while they wait. Federal law allows only 10,000 U-1 visas each fiscal year, and USCIS has long used a waiting-list system once that cap is reached. In Shelby’s order, government counsel said the backlog could stretch as long as 10 years. That timing shaped the court’s view of what comes next. If Chavez Rascon is still effectively protected by deferred action while he waits in line, Shelby said, his actual removal may be too remote to justify keeping him jailed now.
Shelby’s ruling was broad in its warning but limited in its immediate relief. The judge said Chavez Rascon had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of his claim and wrote that detention in this setting cannot continue longer than is reasonably necessary to carry out removal. He added that the government had nearly two weeks after notice of the habeas filing to identify a lawful reason for custody and had still not done so by the March 9 hearing. The order also notes there was no allegation Chavez Rascon was “particularly dangerous” or that he had abused the legal process to delay his case. Shelby barred the government from removing him from the United States while the case continues, ordered officials to tell Bracken where Chavez Rascon was being held, and directed them to give him meaningful and timely access to counsel. But the judge stopped short of ordering immediate release.
The case has also taken on a human weight outside the courthouse. Salt Lake Tribune reporting described Chavez Rascon as living in West Valley City with his girlfriend, Samarit Solano, and the couple is expecting a daughter at the end of March. That detail sharpens the stakes of a case that might otherwise read like a dry fight over detention law, agency rules and filing deadlines. Instead, the public record shows a young man who moved from a county jail drug suspicion to federal immigration custody even after the suspected narcotics turned out to be food. Bracken has argued that the shift happened so quickly that Chavez Rascon’s legal team struggled to locate him and protect his access to the courts. Shelby echoed that concern in his order, writing that “freedom from imprisonment” sits at the core of the liberty the Constitution protects.
The next steps are procedural, but they matter. Shelby ordered the government to show cause by 5 p.m. March 12 why the habeas petition should not be granted, and he allowed Chavez Rascon to reply by 5 p.m. March 13. He said a hearing would be set after briefing if one is needed. The judge did not require Chavez Rascon to post bond, and he denied the rest of the emergency request for now because the detention question remains unresolved. That means the court has already stepped in to prevent removal and protect attorney access, but it has not yet answered the biggest question in the case: whether immigration officials can lawfully keep Chavez Rascon in custody after a state arrest collapsed, no criminal charge was filed, and the government still had not offered a clear basis for revoking the protection that appears to come with his U visa status.
As of March 15, the most recent public order reviewed still blocked Chavez Rascon’s removal and left the release question open. The next milestone identified by the court was its review of the post-hearing briefs and, if needed, a further hearing on whether his detention can continue.
Author note: Last updated March 15, 2026.