Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
Concerned about immigration issues following President Donald Trump's re-election? Click Here
Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
In the years following 9/11, federal scrutiny intensified around anything that hinted at national-security risk. One of the most dramatic examples came from the New Mexico desert, where a Canadian explosives instructor, David Hudak, found himself at the center of a high-profile federal prosecution and, later, a series of immigration proceedings where attorney John Lawit played a pivotal role.
In August 2002, federal agents descended on a remote training facility near Roswell operated by Hudak’s company, High Energy Access Tools (HEAT). The school provided explosives instruction to law enforcement and military personnel, and its client list included students from the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, a detail that, in the post-9/11 climate, heightened law-enforcement concern.
During the raid, agents seized crates of munitions and commercial explosive material, thousands of items in total. Initial reports suggested the presence of anti-tank missile components and “shoulder-launched” munitions, and prosecutors quickly filed weapons and licensing charges. Hudak was arrested on both explosives and immigration counts and held without bail as a perceived flight risk.
What followed was a six-week federal trial that pulled national attention. Prosecutors alleged Hudak illegally possessed and acquired advanced weaponry using his training company as a cover, while the defense argued the items were commercial explosive devices purchased lawfully through a U.S. supplier.
During the proceedings, evidence emerged that the disputed devices had been sold to Hudak through a Halliburton subsidiary as demolition components, not military warhead,s and that all required purchase documentation had been completed. Within a day of receiving the case, the jury returned a full acquittal on all nine federal weapons and munitions charges.
The case, once touted as a major national-security investigation, was ultimately characterized by officials as a licensing and regulatory misunderstanding rather than a terrorism matter.
Although cleared of every criminal charge, Hudak remained in custody as immigration allegations proceeded. He faced claims that he had violated the terms of his visa, including accusations involving employment and alleged unauthorized business activities in the United States.
This is where immigration attorney John Lawit became central to Hudak’s defense.
Before Immigration Judge Penny Smith, Lawit argued that Hudak had been paid by his Canadian company, not the U.S. training entity, and therefore had not violated the employment restrictions of his visa. Over time, nearly all immigration counts were dismissed. Two of the three remaining charges were thrown out outright: one involving alleged unauthorized payment, and another regarding visa overstay while Hudak was detained.
By the time the government withdrew additional allegations, only a single question remained for the court: whether Hudak intended to engage in disallowed work for HEAT when he entered the United States. Lawit, speaking after the hearing, expressed confidence that Hudak would not be ordered removed and would likely be able to pursue a new visa if he left the country voluntarily.
For Lawit, the Hudak matter underscored a recurring truth in immigration law: when high-stakes criminal allegations collapse, immigration consequences often linger and must be navigated with meticulous legal strategy. The case also served as an early example of how, in moments of national anxiety, lawful conduct can be misconstrued without careful legal advocacy to correct the record.
More than two decades later, the case remains a reminder of the importance of due process, accurate classification of regulated materials, and the essential role immigration counsel plays when criminal and administrative systems collide.
