Lopez Luvian v. Bondi

Background

Miguel Lopez Luvian moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to preserve the existing situation and prevent serious harm before a hearing on a preliminary injunction. He sought to stop his removal from the United States to Mexico while his case under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) proceeded.

The opinion states that Lopez Luvian is a 48-year-old native and citizen of Mexico who had lived in the United States for more than 27 years. He lived in Livermore, California, with his United States citizen wife and their three children, worked as a welder at a local winery for more than two decades, and had no criminal record. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him during a routine immigration check-in, and he was held at Golden State Annex in McFarland, California. The opinion states that he was subject to a final order of removal and could be removed at any time.

Lopez Luvian had sought permanent resident status. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and the Immigration Judge later granted his application for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals sustained the Department of Homeland Security’s appeal and dismissed the removal proceedings. In 2016, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer served Lopez Luvian with a notice concerning reinstatement of a prior removal order. The Ninth Circuit later held that it lacked jurisdiction over his petition for review because the Board’s decision was not a removal order. The Supreme Court denied review.

Lopez Luvian’s complaint asserted claims under the APA, the Fifth Amendment’s due-process guarantee, for injunctive relief, and under the Declaratory Judgment Act. He filed the temporary-restraining-order motion on June 6, 2025.

Legal standard

For a request to stay removal, the court applied four factors: whether the applicant was likely to succeed on the merits, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether the stay would substantially injure other interested parties, and where the public interest lay. Because the government was the opposing party, the last two factors were treated together.

Discussion

Likelihood of success

The court first held that it could consider Lopez Luvian’s APA claim concerning the termination of his removal proceedings. The court reasoned that he had no other adequate remedy because the Ninth Circuit had declined jurisdiction, and it characterized the Board’s action as final because the Board had terminated the proceedings and Lopez Luvian had no avenue for judicial review.

The court then found that Lopez Luvian had shown a likelihood of success on the APA claim at this stage. The APA permits a court to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful. The court focused on the major-questions doctrine, which requires an agency to identify clear congressional authorization when it claims extraordinary authority with major economic or political significance.

Based on the limited record, the court found that the Board’s claimed authority to terminate removal proceedings without judicial review was both an “unheralded” expansion of agency authority and an issue of vast economic and political significance. The court concluded that the cited immigration statutes did not clearly authorize the Board to exercise unfettered, non-reviewable authority over termination of removal proceedings. It therefore found that Lopez Luvian had demonstrated a likelihood of success on his APA claim.

Irreparable harm

The court found that Lopez Luvian had shown irreparable harm. It reasoned that the government’s return policy would not provide him a path back to the United States if he were removed because he did not have a pending appeal before the Supreme Court or a federal court of appeals. The court also considered the possible effects of removal on his ability to remain, live, and work in the United States and on his immediate family.

Public interest and government injury

The court acknowledged the government’s interest in promptly carrying out removal orders but found that this interest did not outweigh Lopez Luvian’s showing on the first two factors. It concluded that the public interest favored judicial oversight of Board decisions affecting noncitizens and preventing potentially wrongful removal.

Order

The court granted the motion for a temporary restraining order. Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and others acting with them were temporarily restrained from removing Lopez Luvian from the United States until the court resolved his forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered the defendants to immediately provide a copy of the order to persons or entities who might be subject to it.

The court maintained the in-person status conference set for June 12, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. It directed the parties to address questions including Lopez Luvian’s location and status, the reason for his detention, the statutory authorization for non-reviewable termination of removal proceedings, his age and circumstances when he entered the United States, and whether he had committed any infraction, misdemeanor, or criminal offense. Lopez Luvian was ordered to file his preliminary-injunction motion by June 20, 2025. The order states that it resolved ECF 8.