Tapia is now in DHS/ICE custody as someone with a final order of removal. Legally, ICE’s default next step is to execute that removal order and deport him, because ERO is responsible for removing noncitizens who are subject to final removal orders.
However, removal can be delayed if U.S. authorities decide to prosecute him first on the Connecticut sexual‑assault warrant, or if the U.S. government chooses to honor Ecuador’s murder warrant through an extradition request:
DHS has not publicly stated which option it will pursue, so from available information it is not possible to say definitively whether he will be deported, extradited, or prosecuted first in the U.S.
A “final order of removal” is the point at which an immigration judge’s removal decision is no longer subject to administrative appeal and becomes legally binding. Under 8 C.F.R. §1241.1, this happens when, for example, the person waives appeal, the 30‑day appeal window expires with no appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismisses the appeal, or an in‑absentia order is entered.
Once the order is final, ICE is legally obligated under 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(1) to attempt to remove the person within a 90‑day “removal period,” and the person can be detained during that period. But it does not guarantee literal same‑day deportation: delays are common due to logistics, travel documents, pending criminal matters, country cooperation, or legal motions, and after 90 days some individuals are released under supervision if removal cannot be carried out promptly.
When DHS says Tapia was “released into the country by the Biden administration,” it is referring to the practice of processing someone who has just entered the U.S. (often at the border) and then releasing them from immigration detention while their case is pending, instead of keeping them locked up.
Legally, DHS/ICE and CBP have discretion under the immigration statutes (e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§1225, 1226) to:
People who are released may be put on ICE’s “non‑detained docket” and sometimes into Alternatives to Detention programs (electronic monitoring and check‑ins) while they await hearings. In Tapia’s case, DHS says he later failed to appear and was ordered removed in absentia, which is how he ended up with a final order of removal.
DHS, through ICE, has federal authority to enforce civil immigration law nationwide, including in Minneapolis:
Local law enforcement can participate in several ways:
In the Minneapolis operation described, ICE led the immigration enforcement; DHS says this is part of a broader surge of federal agents, with local authorities typically supporting but not controlling the immigration side of the operation.
DHS’s press release itself is currently the only concrete public document that states the figures of “more than 1,000 arrests” in Minnesota and “more than 150” arrests in Minneapolis the prior day. As of now, DHS has not published detailed underlying arrest lists tied specifically to those numbers.
For broader context, some related public data and reporting include:
Without more granular ICE data or a Minnesota‑specific operation report, the exact composition and verification of the 1,000+ and 150+ arrest figures remain undocumented in public datasets.
When U.S. authorities act on foreign criminal warrants, they generally rely on international police‑to‑police channels and domestic databases rather than treating the foreign warrant itself as directly enforceable law in the U.S. Key steps include:
Verification through INTERPOL and U.S. systems
Use in immigration enforcement
In Tapia’s case, DHS indicates Ecuador has an active murder warrant; U.S. immigration officers would typically have confirmed that through INTERPOL or direct liaison channels and then used it both to justify his arrest as a “public safety” priority and to coordinate any later decision on extradition or removal.