ICE Allegedly Used to Deport Mother During Active Custody Battle
Paolo Zampolli, U.S. special representative for global partnerships and the man who introduced Donald and Melania Trump, allegedly contacted a senior ICE official to have his Brazilian ex-girlfriend Amanda Ungaro detained and deported while they were locked in a custody dispute over their teenage son. The case, reported by The Daily Beast and The New York Times in March 2026, raises urgent questions about how immigration enforcement can be weaponized in family court proceedings and what protections exist for noncitizen parents fighting for custody in New York.
| Key Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| What happened | Zampolli allegedly asked a high-ranking ICE official to detain and deport his ex-girlfriend during their custody battle |
| Who is involved | Paolo Zampolli (U.S. special representative for global partnerships) and Amanda Ungaro (Brazilian national, mother of their teenage son) |
| Where it occurred | Ungaro was held in a Miami jail on fraud charges when ICE custody began; custody dispute spans New York and Florida |
| Key legal issue | Whether immigration enforcement was leveraged to gain advantage in a private custody dispute |
| Statute at stake | N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 (best interests of the child standard) |
| Impact | Raises questions about due process protections for noncitizen parents in custody proceedings nationwide |
Weaponizing Immigration Enforcement in Custody Cases Is Not New, but This Case Is Extraordinary
Family law attorneys across the country have seen immigration status used as leverage in custody disputes for decades. A 2021 study by the National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project found that approximately 48% of noncitizen parents in contested custody cases reported threats related to their immigration status from the other parent. What makes the Zampolli case exceptional is the alleged direct involvement of a senior government official using official channels to initiate deportation proceedings against a co-parent.
According to The Daily Beast's reporting, Zampolli reportedly saw an opportunity when Ungaro was already in a Miami jail on fraud charges. She was subsequently placed in ICE custody and deported to Brazil, effectively separating her from their teenage son. The timeline matters here: if deportation proceedings were initiated or accelerated because of a private custody dispute rather than standard immigration enforcement priorities, that raises serious due process concerns under both federal and state law.
This alleged conduct goes beyond the typical custody playbook of threatening to report a co-parent to immigration authorities. It describes a scenario where someone with access to government power allegedly used that access to remove a parent from the country entirely.
How New York Law Protects Parental Rights Regardless of Immigration Status
New York courts apply the best interests of the child standard under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 when making custody determinations. Immigration status is not a listed factor in this analysis, and New York case law has been increasingly clear that a parent's undocumented or precarious immigration status alone cannot be the basis for denying custody or parenting time.
The New York Court of Appeals addressed this principle in the 2010 case Bravo v. Vargas, where the court emphasized that custody determinations must focus on the child's welfare, not the immigration status of either parent. New York Family Court Act § 651 grants family courts broad jurisdiction over custody matters, and that jurisdiction does not evaporate when one parent is deported or faces removal proceedings.
In practice, New York family courts have several tools available when a parent is removed from the country during active custody litigation:
- Courts can issue orders requiring the custodial parent to facilitate video communication between the child and the deported parent, typically mandating a minimum schedule of 3-5 virtual visits per week
- Judges can appoint a law guardian under N.Y. Family Court Act § 249 to independently investigate whether the remaining parent played any role in the other parent's deportation
- Courts can draw adverse inferences against a parent who is found to have initiated or encouraged immigration enforcement against a co-parent, treating it as evidence of willingness to interfere with the parent-child relationship
- Emergency custody modifications can be filed under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 when a parent's sudden removal from the country constitutes a substantial change in circumstances
New York also has provisions under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law §§ 75-78) that address interstate and international custody disputes. Under UCCJEA § 76-f, New York retains jurisdiction as the child's home state even when one parent is no longer physically in the United States, as long as the child has lived in New York for at least 6 consecutive months before the custody proceeding.
The Intersection of Federal Immigration Law and State Custody Orders
Federal immigration enforcement operates independently of state family court orders, creating a gap that cases like this one expose. ICE is not required to consider active custody proceedings before initiating removal, and there is no federal statute that automatically stays deportation when a custody case is pending. However, immigration judges do have discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b to consider family ties, including the presence of U.S. citizen children, when evaluating cancellation of removal.
The critical question in the Zampolli case is whether the deportation resulted from standard immigration enforcement or was instead the product of improper influence. If a government official used their position to trigger immigration action for personal benefit in a custody dispute, that could implicate both federal ethics laws and potentially provide grounds for the deported parent to challenge the removal through an immigration appeal.
Practical Takeaways for New York Parents
-
Document everything immediately if you are a noncitizen parent in a custody dispute and your co-parent has threatened to involve immigration authorities. Save all text messages, emails, and voicemails. New York courts can and do consider this evidence when evaluating which parent is more likely to foster the child's relationship with the other parent under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240.
-
File for custody proactively rather than waiting. Under New York law, either parent can file a custody petition in Family Court regardless of immigration status. Having an active custody order in place before any immigration issues arise gives the noncitizen parent significantly stronger legal footing.
-
Retain both a family law attorney and an immigration attorney if deportation is a realistic possibility. These two areas of law interact in ways that a specialist in only one field may not fully anticipate. The average retainer for a family law attorney in New York ranges from $5,000 to $15,000 depending on complexity.
-
Request that the family court issue a ne exeat order preventing the other parent from removing the child from New York while custody is being determined. This is available under New York's inherent equitable powers and can be issued on an emergency basis.
-
If you are already outside the United States due to deportation, you can still participate in New York custody proceedings remotely. N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 75-j permits testimony by electronic means, and courts have become far more receptive to remote participation since 2020.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a parent lose custody in New York because of immigration status?
No. New York courts cannot deny custody based solely on immigration status. Under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240, judges must apply the best interests of the child standard, which focuses on parenting ability, stability, and the willingness to foster the child's relationship with the other parent. A 2010 Court of Appeals ruling confirmed that immigration status alone is not a disqualifying factor in custody determinations.
What happens to a custody case if one parent is deported from the United States?
The custody case continues in the state where the child resides. Under the UCCJEA (N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 75-a), New York retains jurisdiction as long as the child has lived in the state for at least 6 consecutive months. The deported parent can participate remotely via video under § 75-j, and courts can modify custody arrangements to include virtual parenting time schedules.
Can a New York judge punish a parent who reported their co-parent to ICE?
Yes. New York family courts can draw adverse inferences against a parent who weaponizes immigration enforcement. Judges evaluating custody under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240 consider each parent's willingness to foster the child's relationship with the other parent. Deliberately causing a co-parent's deportation can be treated as evidence of interference, potentially shifting custody to the deported parent or their designee.
Does ICE have to consider active custody cases before deporting a parent?
No federal law requires ICE to pause deportation proceedings because of a pending state custody case. However, immigration judges have discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b to weigh family ties when considering cancellation of removal. Having a U.S. citizen child and an active custody order can support an argument for prosecutorial discretion, though outcomes vary significantly by jurisdiction and current enforcement priorities.
How much does it cost to fight a custody case involving immigration issues in New York?
A custody case involving immigration complications typically costs between $10,000 and $50,000 in legal fees in New York, depending on complexity and whether the case goes to trial. This estimate covers both family law and immigration counsel. New York Family Courts can order the higher-earning parent to contribute to the other parent's legal fees under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 237, which can help level the playing field when there is a significant income disparity.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.