Reported / Citable
Background
Georges Camiso Bachour filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained at the Limestone County Detention Center in Groesbeck, Texas. He also sought a temporary restraining order barring the government from transferring him outside the court’s jurisdiction in a way that would interfere with the habeas case and from removing or deporting him while the case remained pending.
The court evaluated the requested TRO under the usual four-factor standard. It separately addressed Bachour’s request to stop removal and his concern that a transfer to another detention facility could affect the court’s authority over the habeas petition.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Leon Schydlower denied the TRO. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived it of jurisdiction to restrain Bachour’s removal because a request to stop removal is directly and immediately connected to executing a removal order.
The court also held that a transfer would not defeat its jurisdiction over the pending habeas petition. Bachour was allegedly detained in the Western District of Texas when he filed, and habeas jurisdiction attaches at initial filing. If the government later moved him, the court would retain jurisdiction and could direct relief to a respondent within its jurisdiction with authority to effectuate release.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1252(g) bars district-court jurisdiction over a request to stay or restrain execution of a removal order.
- In a properly filed habeas case, jurisdiction attaches when the petition is filed in the district of confinement against the immediate custodian.
- A later transfer to another detention facility does not itself strip the court of habeas jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The order distinguishes between challenges to removal, which the court concluded Congress removed from its jurisdiction under § 1252(g), and preserving jurisdiction over a pending detention-based habeas petition. For immigration practitioners, it underscores that a detainee’s transfer after proper filing does not alone require emergency injunctive relief to keep the habeas case in the original court.