Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Joy Iive Oche, an immigrant who received a final removal order in 2012 but was granted withholding of removal to Nigeria, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on July 7, 2026. She subsequently filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and stay of removal, alongside a habeas corpus petition. Oche claimed that ICE intended to remove her to Mexico without proper notice or an opportunity to express a fear of removal to that country, an assertion based on an overheard conversation among detention facility staff.
Oche sought an order enjoining the respondents from removing her from the United States or transferring her outside the Northern District of Texas while her habeas petition remained pending. She argued that the TRO was necessary to maintain the “status quo” and allow the court to consider her due process claims regarding notice and opportunity to express fear of removal to Mexico. The court considered the standard for granting a TRO, which requires demonstrating a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, that the threatened injury outweighs harm to the opposing party, and that the injunction would not disserve the public interest.
The Court’s Holding
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Oche’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and stay of removal. The court first determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin or stay the execution of a removal order. Citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and Fifth Circuit precedent, the court affirmed that challenges to the execution of removal orders fall outside its jurisdiction, with judicial review exclusively available through petitions for review in the appropriate court of appeals.
Alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, the court found that Oche failed to meet the high burden for injunctive relief under Rule 65. Her claim of imminent removal to Mexico was deemed speculative, relying solely on an overheard conversation and contradicting written ICE documentation indicating efforts to obtain travel documents from Ghana. The court emphasized that mere speculation or conclusory allegations of irreparable injury are insufficient. Furthermore, Oche did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, as her 2012 withholding order applied only to Nigeria, and there was no evidence that ICE was attempting to remove her to Nigeria or violating that order. Her claims regarding lack of notice concerning Mexico were unsubstantiated due to the unproven nature of Mexico as the intended destination.
Key Takeaways
- District courts generally lack jurisdiction to issue temporary restraining orders or stays that challenge the execution of final removal orders, as such challenges fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of appeals.
- Petitions for injunctive relief in immigration cases require concrete evidence of imminent harm, not speculative claims based on overheard conversations.
- An immigrant’s previously granted withholding of removal to one country does not automatically prevent removal to other countries permitted by law, absent specific prohibition.
Why It Matters
This ruling reinforces the strict jurisdictional limits placed on federal district courts in immigration matters, particularly concerning the execution of removal orders. It clarifies that such courts cannot intervene to halt removals, even when constitutional claims are raised, if those claims are “directly and immediately” connected to the execution of the order. This means immigrants seeking to challenge their removal must typically pursue relief through the court of appeals.
Moreover, the case underscores the demanding evidentiary standard for obtaining emergency injunctive relief. Litigants must present clear, non-speculative evidence of imminent, irreparable harm. Reliance on informal information, such as overheard conversations, is insufficient to overcome documentary evidence or the high bar for an “extraordinary and drastic” remedy like a TRO, particularly in high-stakes immigration contexts.