Santa Fe County's ICE ordinance and family hardship in New Mexico

A new county policy is background. To see what it means for one family, we need the details: which services the family uses, who makes that possible, and what would change if one of them could no longer be here. That is what our forensic psychological evaluation looks at.

What did Santa Fe County change?

The Board of County Commissioners adopted the County Facilities and Community Trust Ordinance on September 29, 2026. It restricts when the county will let civil immigration enforcement use county property as a staging area. As a general rule, county staff also cannot consent to agents entering nonpublic areas for that purpose without judicial process. The ordinance lists exceptions. It also covers county resources, confidential records and detention practices. Adopted ordinance, Sections 5 through 7

The ordinance has limits. Public areas stay open to everyone on equal terms, law enforcement officers included. It applies to the county's own operations, and it does not make Santa Fe a place where ICE cannot act. The City of Santa Fe is a separate government, and this ordinance is the county's. In its September 30 announcement, the county says the aim is to keep community trust and keep people using services. That is the county's stated aim. Whether it holds true for a given family is a question for the evaluation.

What about the rest of New Mexico?

The state has its own law. The Immigrant Safety Act, House Bill 9, was signed on February 5, 2026. It limits public bodies' agreements for civil immigration detention, and agreements that hand immigration enforcement duties to their staff. It is state law, separate from the county ordinance, and it covers different ground. HB 9 legislative record and enacted text, Sections 3 and 4

HB 9 has been challenged in federal court, and the case has already produced orders about detention agreements in Otero County. So the text of the law is not enough to tell you how each part of it applies today. Before advising a family about a specific place or situation, an attorney should check the law and the current court orders. Federal court's stipulated order

For families outside Santa Fe County, the clinical question is the same, and it is answered one household at a time. A clinic in Las Cruces or Gallup may have different eligibility rules, different hours and a different way to get there. We need to know what the person can actually use, including the help that is already working.

What support would remain if the family were separated?

A service can exist and still be out of reach. The evaluation looks at that gap, between what is available and what the relative can actually use. USCIS's extreme hardship guidance counts access to social support, family responsibilities and health care as part of a person's overall circumstances. No single factor, by itself, automatically establishes extreme hardship. USCIS Policy Manual, hardship considerations

Take a hypothetical case. A woman gets her care at a local clinic. Her husband, who is the one applying for the waiver, drives her to appointments and helps her follow the care plan. If he were abroad, the clinic would still be there. The evaluation asks whether another person or a service could do what he does, and whether that would cover what her records show she needs. It also asks how much she could manage on her own.

Maybe her sister can reliably take over the rides. Maybe no one can. Either answer goes in the report, even when the answer makes the hardship argument weaker. Being married does not, by itself, prove she depends on him.

We look at the new county policy the same way. If someone says they feel more comfortable using services now, we ask what changed in practice. Did they go to an appointment? Pick an activity back up? If nothing changed, we record that too.

What would the evaluation document?

We put the person's own account next to what we observe, the standardized questionnaires that fit the case, and whatever records exist. The report says where each finding came from and what is still missing or uncertain. A questionnaire score on its own does not make a diagnosis, show what caused a symptom, or decide whether someone qualifies for immigration relief.

Useful records include appointment histories, care instructions, and anything that shows who helps now. A clinic record can show missed appointments and say nothing about why they were missed. Before we connect those misses to a lost ride, a separation or anything else, we need the person's account and whatever else supports it.

The report keeps two things apart: what is hard now, and what would change under the separation or relocation scenario the attorney has asked about. USCIS weighs the evidence as a whole. Its guidance lists professional mental health evaluations among the records that can support a case. An evaluation is one part of that record. USCIS Policy Manual, qualifying-relative scenarios and hardship evidence

Who should consider an evaluation?

An evaluation can help when the attorney has a clinical question that the existing records do not answer. In an I-601A case, the person we evaluate is the qualifying relative whose hardship has to be shown. The attorney decides which relationship and legal standard apply, and how the clinical evidence fits the filing. Our article on whose hardship matters in I-601A and I-601 cases explains that distinction.

A new ordinance is not, on its own, a reason to pay for an evaluation. Some families need legal advice, help getting to services, or treatment. Our work answers one evidence question in an immigration case. We do not provide therapy, and we do not decide the case.

General information. Sources checked October 2, 2026. Laws, court orders and local implementation can change. This article provides general educational information, not legal advice or an individual clinical opinion. An immigration attorney should assess the law and evidence in a particular case.