Domingo M.M. v. Shea

Background

Domingo M.M. filed a petition challenging his detention at the Freeborn County Jail while he was subject to removal proceedings. He also moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against Ryan Shea, Peter Berg, Todd Lyons, and Kristi Noem, in their official capacities. He asked the Court to stop his removal, release him during the proceedings, or, if he remained detained, prevent his transfer to a facility outside the District of Minnesota.

The opinion states that Domingo entered the United States without inspection or authorization in January 2020. After an earlier Minnesota arrest and immigration proceedings, an Immigration Law Judge granted cancellation of removal, but the Board of Immigration Appeals later reversed that decision and granted voluntary departure. Domingo did not depart. He later applied for U-1 nonimmigrant status based on his claim that he had been the victim of a felonious assault. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services later found that his application was bona fide and that he warranted favorable discretion for employment authorization and deferred action on removal.

According to the opinion, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested and detained Domingo on July 10, 2025, when he appeared at its St. Paul office. He filed his detention petition the next day and moved for emergency relief. At a July 15 status conference, counsel for the federal respondents stated that they intended to remove Domingo imminently and could not guarantee that removal would not occur as early as July 16. The Court then issued the TRO orally and followed it with this written order.

Court’s analysis

For a TRO, the Court applied the four factors used in the Eighth Circuit: the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without relief, the balance of harms, and the public interest. The Court emphasized that the central question was whether preserving the current situation was necessary until the merits could be decided.

The Court found the likelihood-of-success factor neutral because the record contained briefing on the merits from Domingo but not yet from the respondents. The Court found the irreparable-harm factor strongly favored Domingo because removal or an out-of-state transfer before full briefing could prevent the Court from hearing and deciding his claims. The Court found that the harm to the respondents would be minimal, consisting mainly of possible additional detention costs, and that the expedited schedule reduced that harm. The public-interest factor also favored Domingo because of the asserted constitutional violations, which the Court said it could not assess without full merits briefing.

Ruling

Judge Laura M. Provinzino granted in part Domingo’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction. The order requires the respondents, and any other person, entity, or government agency, not to remove, transfer, or facilitate the removal or transfer of Domingo from the District of Minnesota. The order does not require his release; the opinion states that the respondents may continue to detain him at a facility within the District.

The Court denied the motion in all other respects. It declined to grant declaratory relief or a preliminary injunction before the claims could be heard and decided on the merits. The order took effect immediately and expires 14 days after entry unless Domingo shows good cause for an extension.