Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ibrahima Kalil Sano filed a habeas petition and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. He asked the district court to require federal officials to comply with a July 28, 2026 stay of removal entered by the Seattle Immigration Court.
Sano sought an order prohibiting respondents from removing him from the United States or transporting, transferring, or boarding him for the purpose of removal while the immigration judge’s stay remained effective. He characterized the requested relief as enforcement of an existing administrative stay rather than judicial review of his removal order.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Sano’s request for emergency injunctive relief. It concluded that Sano had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a required element for a temporary restraining order.
The court reasoned that directing one component of the Executive Branch to comply with a stay issued by another would involve judicial intervention in the execution of a removal order. Because federal district courts generally lack jurisdiction to review or stay removal orders, the court found that describing the requested injunction as enforcement of an administrative stay did not avoid the jurisdictional limitation.
The court also identified unresolved concerns involving jurisdiction, standing, and ripeness. Those issues had not yet been briefed and further undermined Sano’s showing of likely success. The court left his habeas petition pending on an expedited basis.
Key Takeaways
- A request to enforce an immigration judge’s stay may still be treated as a challenge involving execution of a removal order.
- Unresolved threshold questions concerning jurisdiction, standing, and ripeness can defeat the likelihood-of-success requirement for emergency injunctive relief.
- The denial addressed Sano’s emergency TRO request; it did not dispose of his expedited habeas petition.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the jurisdictional obstacle immigration detainees face when asking a federal district court to prevent removal, even when an immigration judge has already entered an administrative stay. How the requested relief is labeled will not control if its practical effect is to restrain execution of a removal order.
The ruling is limited to emergency relief at the outset of the case. The court did not resolve the merits of Sano’s habeas claims, which remained pending for expedited consideration.