Arora v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

Arora stated that he fled India after being beaten and shot because of his political and religious beliefs. He entered the United States from Mexico in November 2021 and was immediately detained by immigration officers. The officers issued Form I-860, a notice and order concerning expedited removal. The form stated that Arora had been found inadmissible on November 26, but its section ordering removal was not completed.

Arora expressed fear of persecution if returned to India. The opinion explains that, in that situation, expedited removal generally cannot proceed unless an asylum officer conducts a credible-fear interview and finds that the fear is not credible. No such interview was held or scheduled at that time. Arora was released in early December 2021, later settled in California, filed an asylum application in January 2022, received employment authorization in September 2022, worked as a cashier, and attended required immigration check-in meetings.

In June 2025, the defendants dismissed Arora’s asylum application because they determined that he was subject to expedited removal based on the 2021 Form I-860. The defendants later scheduled a credible-fear interview. According to Arora, defense counsel represented that the interview scheduled for October 15 would be rescheduled, so he did not attend. Two days later, immigration officers detained him, apparently because he missed the interview.

Motion and jurisdiction ruling

Arora moved for a temporary restraining order, which is an emergency order intended to preserve a person’s position while a case proceeds. He asked the court to prevent the defendants from conducting a credible-fear interview, removing him under any expedited-removal order, taking adverse action because he missed an interview, detaining him based only on an expedited-removal order, and refusing to decide his asylum application on the merits.

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction, meaning it lacked legal authority to hear Arora’s claims. The court concluded that all of his claims challenged the defendants’ authority to place him in the expedited-removal process or to enforce an expedited-removal order. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A), the court explained, federal courts generally may not review claims concerning the implementation or operation of an expedited-removal order, the decision to use expedited removal, its application to an individual, or the procedures and policies used to implement it. The court noted that limited proceedings for challenging detention may remain available, but it did not address such a proceeding here.

Disposition

The court denied Arora’s motion for a temporary restraining order. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it did not reach the defendants’ remaining arguments for denying the motion.

The court ordered Arora, by January 15, 2026, either to voluntarily dismiss the action or to file a written brief of no more than five pages explaining why the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants may respond with a brief of no more than five pages by January 29, 2026. The court also extended and kept in place its prior order barring the defendants from removing Arora from the United States while the case remains pending.