Judge Issues Deportation Order for Teen Reported Dead

A U.S. immigration judge in Charlotte, North Carolina, issued a deportation order on May 21 for Levi Mendez-Maldonado, a 19-year-old Honduran national whose attorney said he was killed in November 2024. The judge ordered Mendez-Maldonado removed in absentia, citing his failure to appear at a hearing. His lawyer said she had notified the court that he had died and provided police records as documentation.

The order was signed by Judge Amy Lee. According to Mendez-Maldonado’s attorney, Becca O’Neill of the Carolina Migrant Network, she attended the hearing and told the court her client was deceased. She said she submitted Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department records to support the claim.

O’Neill said the judge treated the police documentation as insufficient proof of death and proceeded with the hearing. The written order did not reference Mendez-Maldonado’s death, she said.

The court order states: “Despite the written notification provided, Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, and no exceptional circumstances were shown for the failure to appear. Therefore, the immigration court conducted the hearing in absentia.”

Evidence presented and the in-absentia order

Mendez-Maldonado arrived in the United States as an unaccompanied minor at age 17, according to the account provided by his attorney. O’Neill said she was preparing to represent him in immigration proceedings when she learned he had been killed in a shooting in November 2024.

Federal regulation 239.2 allows for the cancellation of a notice to appear in immigration court for several reasons, including the death of a respondent. In this case, O’Neill said the police records she provided were not accepted as sufficient evidence during the hearing.

Backlog pressures in Charlotte immigration court

The Charlotte immigration court handles cases for North and South Carolina. It has a backlog of about 129,000 pending cases, according to the information cited in the article.

The court granted legal relief in roughly 1% of cases in 2025, according to the same reporting. Advocates cited in the article said the decision and the absence of any reference to the reported death in the written order reflected a system that prioritizes processing outcomes over the specifics of individual cases.

Further filings or any motion to revisit the order were not detailed. The next step to watch is whether the court record is amended or a request is made to withdraw the notice to appear based on the reported death.