Mexican Man Indicted for Illegal Re-Entry After Prior Deportation
Andres Tovar-Mercado faces charges of illegal re-entry of a removed alien, with enhanced penalties for prior felony convictions. He has not been tried, and the case remains undecided.
NEW ORLEANS – On September 8, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana announced that Andres Tovar-Mercado, 39, a native of Mexico, was indicted on September 3, 2026, for illegal re-entry of a removed alien. The indictment alleges that Tovar-Mercado was found in the United States on August 18, 2026, after having been previously deported on October 13, 2016, and that he re-entered without authorization.
Tovar-Mercado faces up to two years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, up to one year of supervised release, and a mandatory special assessment of $100. He is also eligible for a 10-year enhanced sentence due to prior felony convictions for illegal re-entry in the Western District of Texas. U.S. Attorney David I. Courcelle emphasized that an indictment is merely a charge and that the defendant's guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As this is only a charge, Tovar-Mercado has not been tried, and the case remains undecided. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Carter K.D. Guice Jr. and is part of Operation Take Back America.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 20:23current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.