Marin v. U.S. Department of Justice

Background

Jorge Estuardo Marin alleges that he is a 35-year-old citizen of Guatemala who immigrated to the United States in 1989. The Department of Homeland Security arrested him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 on or about August 15, 2012. He was released on bond the next day and received a notice to appear before an immigration judge on an unspecified date.

On or about August 22, 2013, an immigration judge ordered Marin removed from the United States because he did not appear at his hearing. Marin alleges that he never received notice of the hearing and did not receive the removal order at the address he provided after his release.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Marin on July 9, 2025, and transferred him to the Golden State Annex facility in McFarland, California. His counsel notified the Department of Homeland Security on July 10 that Marin would file a motion to reopen and rescind the 2013 removal order for lack of notice. The opinion states that Marin was transferred to an unknown location on July 12 for removal and informed his fiancée on July 14 that he had been deported to Guatemala.

Claims and court’s analysis

Marin claims that his removal violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process guarantee and provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He also claims that removal violated an automatic stay that applied after he filed his motion to reopen and remained in effect while the immigration judge considered that motion. He further alleges that he lacked sufficient access to legal counsel.

The court explained that federal law allows a person claiming to be held in violation of the Constitution or federal law to seek a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a court order concerning unlawful custody. At this stage, the court was required to issue the writ or order the respondents to explain why it should not issue unless the petition showed on its face that Marin was not legally entitled to relief.

The court concluded that Marin’s allegations of removal without due process, in violation of a stay, and without sufficient access to counsel were enough to require an answer. The court did not decide whether those allegations are true or whether Marin is entitled to a writ.

Order

The court ordered Marin to serve the petition and the order on the respondents and their counsel as soon as practicable and to file proof of service within one day after completing service. The respondents must file an answer within three days after service, explaining why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue and including relevant documents. After receiving the answer, the court will set a hearing. Marin may file a traverse, meaning a response to the answer, within two days after being served with it. The parties may request changes to these deadlines by filing a proposed order for the court’s consideration.

Disposition

The court issued an order to show cause and required the respondents to answer. This was a procedural order; it was not a final decision on Marin’s habeas claims.