Years later, authorities say he was involved in an alleged bomb threat that forced a commercial airline crew to activate emergency procedures.
The incident has renewed scrutiny of immigration detention decisions, the consequences of repeated unlawful entry, and the challenges federal officials face when attempting to remove individuals who have previously violated immigration laws.
Three Illegal Border Crossings and Two Deportations
Gomez-Alberto’s encounters with American immigration authorities reportedly began more than a decade before the airline emergency.
In September 2011, Border Patrol agents apprehended him after he entered the United States illegally near El Indio, Texas.
Federal authorities subsequently removed him from the country.
That enforcement action did not prevent another attempted entry.
In October 2014, agents encountered Gomez-Alberto again, this time near Columbus, New Mexico.
He was deported for a second time.
By 2019, however, he had reportedly returned to the United States once more.
His third documented apprehension occurred near San Ysidro, California, a major border crossing area south of San Diego.
Unlike the previous encounters, this case resulted in an immigration court decision that allowed him to leave detention while his removal proceedings continued.
In January 2020, an immigration judge ordered his release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
The available account does not establish the judge’s specific legal reasoning or whether the court concluded that Gomez-Alberto posed no public safety risk.
Nevertheless, the decision meant that a foreign national who had already been removed twice was permitted to remain outside federal immigration detention.
The account also does not establish whether his removal proceedings were eventually completed.
That unresolved history is now receiving renewed attention following the allegations involving the passenger aircraft.
Flight Crew Confronts Alleged Bomb Threat
What should have been a routine commercial flight from Newark turned into a potentially catastrophic security situation.
DHS alleges that Gomez-Alberto changed into black clothing while aboard the aircraft before approaching the area near the flight deck.
He reportedly informed airline personnel that he possessed an explosive device.
The threat immediately presented the crew with a dangerous problem.
They had to protect the cockpit, maintain control of the aircraft, and respond to a possible explosive threat without knowing whether the passenger’s claim was genuine.
According to the account, the pilots transmitted a hijacking-related emergency alert to air traffic controllers.
Such alerts are reserved for serious aviation security situations and allow controllers to coordinate an appropriate emergency response.
Air traffic control recordings reportedly captured communications as crew members attempted to direct the suspect away from the cockpit and toward the rear of the aircraft.
Meanwhile, the pilots continued operating the plane toward its destination.
The aircraft ultimately landed at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport at approximately 11:15 p.m.
There were reportedly 46 passengers and six crew members aboard.
For those 52 individuals, the allegations represented the possibility of a violent emergency unfolding thousands of feet above the ground.
Authorities have not established in the supplied account that Gomez-Alberto actually possessed a bomb.
That distinction matters: the reported threat and alleged attempt to approach the cockpit are serious accusations, but they do not independently prove that an explosive device was present.
Suspect Faces Multiple Criminal Charges
Following the incident, local authorities detained Gomez-Alberto.
He reportedly faces charges that include a felony bomb threat, terroristic threats, and disorderly conduct.
The supplied account states that he was being held without bail.
DHS also announced that ICE had filed an immigration detainer with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office.
An immigration detainer requests that local authorities notify federal immigration officials before releasing an individual and, where legally permitted, temporarily maintain custody to facilitate an immigration transfer.
The federal government’s involvement means Gomez-Alberto could face immigration enforcement proceedings in addition to the criminal charges stemming from the aircraft incident.
The allegations remain subject to the criminal justice process, and the charges do not constitute a conviction.
DHS nevertheless used the case to emphasize its position on immigration enforcement.
“Criminal illegal aliens are NOT welcome in the United States.”
That statement reflects the department’s enforcement message as the Trump administration continues emphasizing the removal of foreign nationals accused or convicted of serious offenses.
Immigration Court Decision Comes Under Scrutiny
One of the most consequential questions surrounding the incident concerns the January 2020 release order.
How did an individual with two previous deportations remain in the United States long enough to become involved in another major federal law enforcement matter?
For advocates of stronger immigration enforcement, the case illustrates the risks that can arise when repeat immigration violators are released while their proceedings remain unresolved.
But immigration detention decisions are governed by statutory requirements, judicial rulings, and the specific circumstances of individual cases.
Previous deportations can carry serious legal consequences, yet they do not automatically establish that every subsequent detention or release decision was unlawful.
Nor does the information currently presented demonstrate that the immigration judge could have anticipated the alleged aircraft incident years later.
Determining whether the 2020 decision was appropriate would require examining the original court order, the applicable legal standards, the evidence presented to the judge, and any subsequent developments in the suspect’s immigration case.
Those details are essential to understanding whether the situation reflects a procedural failure, an enforcement breakdown, or a lawful decision followed by conduct that authorities could not reasonably have predicted.
Still, the case raises legitimate concerns about how immigration agencies track individuals who have repeatedly returned after removal.
