Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roque Humberto Garcia-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was convicted in the Central District of California of being an alien in possession of ammunition. The government issued a final administrative order removing him to El Salvador.
Garcia-Garcia did not seek to invalidate that order or remain permanently in the United States. Instead, he filed a habeas petition and requested a temporary restraining order preventing his removal until he could pursue protection under the Convention Against Torture and related law. He feared that the government’s identification of him in a sentencing memorandum as an MS-13 member or associate known as “El Rocket” would be communicated to Salvadoran authorities and place him at risk. The Central District of California transferred the case to the Western District of Texas.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition and dismissed it without prejudice. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Gakou v. Warden of Prairieland Detention Center, the court held that Garcia-Garcia’s request to stay his removal to El Salvador challenged the execution of a removal order and therefore fell within 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)’s jurisdictional bar.
The court also concluded that Garcia-Garcia would not qualify for emergency relief even if it could reach the merits. He presented no evidence that the government would remove him before he could raise his fear-based claims. Respondents represented that he would receive the procedures available under federal law, and the record indicated that he had received a reasonable-fear interview on October 9, 2026. His conclusory assertions therefore did not establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.
Key Takeaways
- A request to delay execution of a removal order while CAT claims are pursued falls within Section 1252(g)’s jurisdiction-stripping provision under controlling Fifth Circuit authority.
- Characterizing the requested relief as a temporary stay rather than a challenge to the removal order did not preserve district-court jurisdiction.
- Absent evidence of imminent removal before fear-based procedures are available, conclusory claims that later relief may be ineffective do not establish irreparable harm.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of Section 1252(g) to bar district-court habeas relief aimed at delaying removal, even when the petitioner accepts removal in principle and seeks only time to pursue CAT protection.
It also underscores that noncitizens seeking emergency injunctive relief must offer concrete evidence that removal is likely to occur before available fear-screening procedures can be completed.