S.J.T. v. Nelson
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:25-cv-06205
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In S.J.T. v. Nelson, Judge Beeler denied emergency relief because the hearing request became moot and the court lacked jurisdiction to require a decision by a specific date.
The ruling affected plaintiffs S.J.T. and Z.C.H. by denying their request for an order requiring expedited adjudication of their cancellation-of-removal applications; the court did not decide those applications.
What happened
In S.J.T. v. Nelson, plaintiffs S.J.T. and Z.C.H. sought an emergency order requiring the immigration agency to hold a hearing and decide their applications to cancel removal before their disabled daughter turned twenty-one.
The agency scheduled a hearing for August 6, 2025, before the daughter’s August 14 birthday, so the request for a hearing became moot. The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to require the immigration judge to decide the applications by a specific date.
Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs qualified for cancellation of removal.
The detailed version
- S.J.T. v. Nelson · No. 3:25-cv-06205
- Laurel Beeler
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs S.J.T. and Z.C.H. are spouses and citizens of Mexico who are in removal proceedings. They applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their disabled U.S.-citizen daughter, J.C.J. A child must be under twenty-one to qualify as the relevant family member for this form of relief, and J.C.J. was scheduled to turn twenty-one on August 14, 2025.
The plaintiffs asked the Executive Office for Immigration Review to schedule a merits hearing and decide their cancellation-of-removal applications before that birthday. They moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which are emergency court orders intended to preserve rights or prevent harm while a case proceeds.
An immigration judge initially scheduled a further hearing for August 11, 2025. After that hearing was rescheduled to October 2 before a different immigration judge, the plaintiffs moved to advance it and filed this case. On July 24, 2025, the agency reset the hearing for August 6, 2025.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the same standard to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs had to show, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of immediate, irreparable harm.
The court held that the request for a hearing before August 14 was moot because the agency had scheduled a hearing for August 6. The court acknowledged that a hearing would not necessarily guarantee a decision before the birthday, but it said it lacked jurisdiction to compel adjudication by that date.
The court also explained that federal law channels judicial review of legal and factual issues arising from removal proceedings through a petition for review in the court of appeals. The plaintiffs’ requested relief—an expedited decision on their cancellation-of-removal applications connected to the statutory cap and the daughter’s age—was inextricably linked to their removal proceedings. The court therefore concluded that it could not order the requested adjudication by August 14.
Disposition
The court stated that the request for a hearing was moot, that it lacked jurisdiction to provide further relief, and that it denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs met the requirements for cancellation of removal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.