While NASA plans to establish a human presence on the Moon, Feliciana Sánchez, a Mexican migrant who manufactures parts for a supplier of the US space agency, could not be closer to the ground: in Mexico, authorities are attempting to seize the house she built with decades of hard work in this suburb located 63 kilometers from Atlanta.
“That property is clean. I bought it with clean money,” she told MILENIO during an evening interview, after a workday that began at 3:40 in the morning.
For months, Feliciana has carried the burden of potentially losing her home located in Zimapán, Hidalgo—her homeland from which she emigrated 34 years ago—due to an asset forfeiture proceeding (extinción de dominio) promoted by the state Attorney General’s Office. If lost, the property would pass into the hands of the State.
“I planned to retire there, to live out my old age,” she laments. Her face is tired. This problem occurs amidst a tool that has gained ground in the country: between 2019 and 2024, the Federal Attorney General’s Office (FGR) obtained 143 favorable asset forfeiture sentences and recovered around 573 million pesos in assets.
The Figures Involving Migrant Property
In Hidalgo, authorities reported 272 seized properties between 2016 and April 2024. However, official figures do not reveal how many of those assets belong to migrants who invested their savings in Mexico, nor how many face difficulties defending them from abroad.
According to a survey by the Center for Latin American Monetary Studies (CEMLA):
- Around 32 percent of Mexican migrants living in the United States stated they own a home in their country.
- This involves approximately 3.8 million people, taking into reference the Mexican-born population residing in US territory.
Feliciana arrived in the United States in 1992, became a citizen in the year 2000, and for more than thirty years sent money to Mexico to buy land and build a three-story house. Today, while continuing to work shifts of more than ten hours, she must also face a lawsuit more than 2,000 kilometers away.
Both she and her son, Gustavo Trejo—who arrived at the interview after a long day split between construction work and caring for aquariums—assert that the property was acquired from relatives and built bit by bit with remittances sent from the United States. The family maintains that the upper spaces were rented out to young university students and that they were unaware of any illegal activity inside the property.
The Position of the Hidalgo Attorney General’s Office
The Attorney General’s Office of the State of Hidalgo (PGJEH) maintains the opposite. According to the investigation file 12-2024-09263, the procedure originated from an anonymous complaint received in June 2024. Subsequently, a raid was carried out in which nine bags “with dry green herbs” and 29 bags with a white solid substance were located. Based on these findings, the authority contends that the owners knew of the illicit activities allegedly taking place on the property.
Furthermore, the Attorney General’s Office valued the property at 2 million 650 thousand pesos and argues that:
- The deed presented by the family proves ownership of the property, but not necessarily the source of all resources used to build it.
- The transformation of the original plot of land into a three-story house would not be congruent with the economic activity of the owner.
“I Have Worked for Decades, Earning in Dollars”
The battle is not only fought in court; it is also fought with money, time, and distance. Gustavo Trejo estimates that the family has already spent more than 200 thousand pesos on lawsuits, injunctions (amparos), expert opinions, and paperwork to try to keep the property. Feliciana’s lawyer, Gustavo Alfredo Yáñez, explains that the case is still in a preliminary stage. The lawsuit has already been answered, and the controversy has been defined.
“The property was acquired through a public deed, taxes were paid, and there is documentation proving its origin. Good faith is presumed until proven otherwise.”
What follows will be the initial hearing, where the judge will determine which evidence will be admitted and what facts will remain in dispute between the Attorney General’s Office and the defense. This case exposes a question that goes beyond a single home in Hidalgo: how easy or difficult is it for a migrant to defend their heritage from abroad?
Feliciana says that, due to the nature of her work, she cannot travel to Mexico every time a hearing or a proceeding arises. She must request permission in advance. Furthermore, dates change constantly, and nothing seems stable. “It is complicated for me. Imagine those who are undocumented!” she highlights.
An Imperfect Legal Framework
Feliciana’s case summarizes one of the most delicate debates surrounding asset forfeiture in Mexico: how to combat assets linked to illicit activities without affecting owners who claim to have acted legally. She has presented deeds, tax receipts—including the W-2 form, which reports the annual income of workers in the United States—notarial records, and other documents to prove that the sale was legitimate and that the possession of the property has been public, peaceful, and continuous.
Even so, the case advanced to the courts. In the investigation file, the state Attorney General’s Office argued that it “is not enough to prove the legitimate origin” of the value it calculates for the property: 2.6 million pesos.
“That appraisal is ridiculous for a 64-square-meter property in the province,” Gustavo interjects. “Furthermore, that property cost about 800 thousand pesos because I was building it with my own hands, and even if it had cost the value the government says, my mom generated that income without any problem.”
Following a Supreme Court ruling in 2021, the main axis of investigations for asset forfeiture concentrates on proving the legitimacy of the property right and the lawful origin of the wealth; previously, the owner had to prove they were unaware that crimes were being committed on their property. Financially and legally, today the weight falls heavier on the question: “Where did the money come from and how was the asset acquired?” rather than the question: “What did the owner know about the subsequent use of the property?”
A New Modality of Organized Crime?
Asset forfeiture has been in force in the 32 states of the country and at the federal level since the constitutional reform of 2019 and the entry into force of the National Asset Forfeiture Law. This means any entity can promote lawsuits so that assets linked to illicit activities pass to State ownership in matters related to organized crime, kidnapping, human trafficking, money laundering, corruption, crimes against health, vehicle theft, and other crimes.
However, its application is unequal. While Mexico City concentrates the largest number of cases and sentences reported, states like Hidalgo, Chihuahua, and Guanajuato have driven procedures in a more limited manner.
For the procedure against Feliciana, the Attorney General’s Office arguments stem from an anonymous call accusing Gustavo of selling drugs. However, he tells MILENIO that on the day of the raid, the police did not go after him, but rather came to plant drugs—a recurring complaint against Mexican police forces that appears documented in various recommendations by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH).
Gustavo affirms that during the raid, the police ripped out the cameras, destroyed part of the electrical installation, and took all the recording equipment. “Those recordings disappeared,” he asserts. “That’s why I’ve always asked: if they really had evidence of illicit activities, why did they eliminate the cameras that could prove it?”
Some of the reasons the family finds to explain their situation have a darker background: alleged links between municipal authorities and criminal groups. Gustavo temporarily entered politics by supporting a campaign for the Green Party. He claims that after the electoral defeat, extortions began. They demanded money from him and a friend; his friend paid, but he refused.
The defense attorney, Yáñez, maintains that Gustavo’s case is not the only one he has detected related to migrant properties. “They are more vulnerable because they are not here,” he says. Currently, he also represents another asset forfeiture case in Zimapán, where authorities raided only one room inside a tenement house (vecindad), but the judicial action seeks to seize the entire property, which comprises around 32 rental rooms. “They raided one room, but they want to keep everything,” he summarizes.
INDEP Revenue from Asset Sales
The final destination of the assets should privilege public interest, according to international experts. Below are the historical figures of income obtained by the Institute to Return the Stolen to the People (INDEP) from the sale of assets:
| Year | Revenue (Millions of Pesos) |
| 2020 | 353 |
| 2021 | 2,932 |
| 2022 | 878 |
| 2023 | 45.9 |
| 2025 | 40.9 |
Source: milenio
