Reported / Citable
Background
Aracenia Cortes Mendez, an undocumented Honduran national, was ordered removed to Honduras in 2016. Approximately eight years later, she filed a derivative U-visa petition. ICE arrested her at Denver International Airport in May 2026 and transferred her to the Rio Grande Processing Center in Laredo, Texas.
Cortes Mendez petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking immediate release and an injunction against removal to a third country. Two days after she filed the petition, ICE removed her to Honduras. She then asked the court to require the government to facilitate her return, arguing in part that her detention and removal violated a nationwide preliminary injunction entered in Immigration Center for Women & Children v. Noem concerning enforcement against certain people with pending victim-based immigration petitions.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice. Cortes Mendez’s challenge to her detention became moot when she was released from custody through removal, because the court could no longer grant the immediate-release remedy she requested. Her claim concerning threatened removal to Mexico was also moot because ICE instead removed her to Honduras, the country designated in her removal order.
The remaining claim sought relief arising directly from the government’s execution of a valid, unchallenged removal order. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived it of jurisdiction to consider that claim or order Cortes Mendez’s return. It further explained that, even if jurisdiction existed, the ICWC preliminary injunction lacked preclusive effect and did not create a right to release or government-facilitated return for every class member with a pending U-visa petition. The court also denied Cortes Mendez’s requests for an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Removal from the United States mooted the petitioner’s habeas challenge to her immigration detention because the requested release could no longer provide effective relief.
- A claim challenging the execution of an unchallenged final removal order fell within the jurisdictional bar imposed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
- A pending U-visa petition and the ICWC preliminary injunction did not establish an entitlement to release from custody or government-facilitated return after removal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the limited reach of habeas relief after an immigration detainee has been removed. A petitioner seeking redress for an allegedly unlawful removal must identify a jurisdictionally available remedy beyond release from custody, and § 1252(g) restricts district-court review of claims directly connected to the execution of removal orders.
It also illustrates that membership in a nationwide preliminary-injunction class does not necessarily entitle an individual to remedies absent from the injunction itself, particularly when the requested relief would require a different district court to direct the government to facilitate reentry.