Reports Claims Child ‘Missing’ in ICE Case – Family Is Being Rightfully Deported and No One Is Missing

by Antonio Graceffo Dec. 4, 2025 10:30 am



Yuanxin and his father were in the country illegally when they were arrested by ICE. Photo via Facebook.

A 6-year-old Chinese boy, Yuanxin, is being reported as missing after he and his father, Fei Zheng, were arrested during a routine ICE check-in at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City.

Zheng is currently detained at the Orange County Correctional Facility, but Homeland Security has not disclosed the child’s location, prompting immigrant-rights advocates to say that “nobody knows” where he is being held.

As always, the headlines, articles, and Instagram posts about the case are alarmist and misrepresent the facts.

The reporting repeatedly says advocates “don’t know where he is.”

That does not mean the child is missing. It means ICE has not disclosed the location to activists, which they are not legally obligated to do.

Federal law prohibits ICE and the Office of Refugee Resettlement from giving a child’s location to activists, journalists, or elected officials.

That information can only be released to the parent, a legal guardian, a designated sponsor, or the child’s attorney.

The claim that the child is “missing” reflects the advocates’ lack of access, not an indication that the government has lost track of him.

The reporting on the case makes clear that neither the boy nor his father is a U.S. citizen.

Both are identified as Chinese nationals who crossed the border earlier this year to seek asylum.

Because the child was not born in the United States and has no legal status, he does not have birthright citizenship.

DHS statements describe the pair as Chinese nationals with an active removal order, which means their country of return is China unless otherwise specified.

DHS stated that the family had an active removal order and that both the father and child were being placed on a plane for removal.

According to DHS, Zheng refused to board, became disruptive, endangered the child’s safety, and attempted to flee while abandoning his son.

In such situations, separating a child from an adult is a standard safety procedure.

The articles reporting the incident mention these facts but do not highlight them, instead framing the separation as intentional.

The family had been detained on three prior occasions.

Their asylum case was closed by an immigration court, indicating that their claim did not meet legal requirements or that they failed procedural obligations.

They had also been arrested at earlier ICE check-ins.

These details show that the family was already in removal proceedings and that the latest arrest was neither isolated nor unexpected.

Much of the reporting relies on statements from New York political figures, including Zohran Mamdani, Adrienne Adams, Tiffany Cabán, Diana Moreno, and Nydia Velázquez.

These officials expressed concern about the separation but do not have oversight of ICE, access to the case file, or knowledge of the child’s location.

Their statements reflect political positions rather than legal or procedural information.

None of the reporting identifies the child’s mother, her whereabouts, or whether she is even in the United States.

No outlet has stated whether she is alive, in China, involved in the immigration case, or available as a sponsor.

She has not been quoted, has not claimed the child is missing, and does not appear in any public statements.

Her absence is significant because if the father were the sole guardian in the country, federal protocol would require the Office of Refugee Resettlement to attempt to contact her as a potential sponsor.

If she were present or objecting, activists and politicians would almost certainly cite her.

The fact that only activists, not any family member, claim the child is “missing” suggests the narrative is being driven without input from the child’s other parent, whose status remains entirely unreported.

In the end, the facts are straightforward.

The family entered the country illegally, their asylum claim was rejected, and they were placed under a lawful removal order.

During the removal process, the father became combative and was taken into adult detention, while the child was transferred to a juvenile facility, which is standard procedure.

No one outside the family has any legal right to the child’s location or case details.

The mother is entirely absent from the record, with no reporting on her whereabouts or involvement.

Based on what is publicly known, ICE followed standard procedure, and there is no evidence that the agency acted improperly.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/12/reports-claims-child-missing-ice-case-family-is/