Reported / Citable
Background
Angello Epifanio Torres Hernandez, an immigration detainee, sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against federal immigration officials. He asked the court to order his release from detention or require the government to provide a bond hearing.
The motion also implicated a requested stay of removal. The court considered the governing requirements for emergency injunctive relief, including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Leon Schydlower denied the motion. The court held that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction cannot provide the petitioner’s ultimate requested relief—release from detention or a bond hearing—because such relief would not preserve the status quo pending a decision on the merits.
The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to stay Torres Hernandez’s removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims directly connected to the Attorney General’s decision or action to execute removal orders, and a request for a stay of removal challenges a removal order.
Key Takeaways
- Emergency injunctive relief generally may not be used to award the ultimate relief sought in the underlying petition.
- A request to be released from immigration detention or to receive a bond hearing was the ultimate relief Torres Hernandez sought.
- The district court lacked jurisdiction to stay removal because a stay request challenges the execution of a removal order.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the procedural limits on using TROs and preliminary injunctions in immigration-detention litigation. A detainee seeking release or a bond hearing must account for the rule that interim relief is intended to preserve the status quo, not resolve the merits by granting the requested end result.
It also reiterates the jurisdictional barrier in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) for district-court challenges tied directly to execution of removal orders.