Walter A. v. Peter B. Berg

Background

Petitioner Walter A. is a 21-year-old citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection at age 15 in 2020 after suffering abuse in his home country. In May 2024, he was arrested on alcohol-related driving offenses in South Dakota (charges remaining pending). At the time of his release from state custody, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him and initiated removal proceedings, charging him with unlawful presence.

While in immigration detention, Walter A. obtained a Minnesota state court order in October 2024 finding him to be a dependent, at-risk juvenile for whom return to Guatemala was not in his best interest. He then filed a Form I-360 petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), disclosing his criminal history. On February 11, 2025, USCIS approved the petition and granted him deferred action — a form of prosecutorial discretion under which the government agrees not to pursue removal — through October 2028. The Immigration Judge (IJ) subsequently terminated his removal proceedings without prejudice on February 21, 2025, on the basis of his SIJ status.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, finding (allegedly based on a factual error about the number of DWI convictions) that the IJ should not have terminated proceedings. On remand, the IJ denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and entered a final removal order on October 14, 2025, which became administratively final on November 13, 2025. Walter A.'s Motion to Reopen in immigration court was denied; his appeal to the BIA remains pending.

Prior Federal Court Proceedings

Walter A. has filed multiple federal habeas petitions (a habeas petition is a request asking a court to examine whether a person's detention or other custody is lawful):

- April 2025 petition (No. 25-cv-1915): Judge Paul Magnuson found the court lacked jurisdiction over three claims and denied relief on the remaining due process claim, dismissing the action without prejudice. - November 2025 petition (No. 25-cv-4376): Walter A. challenged his post-final-order detention, arguing there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz denied habeas relief without prejudice because the petition was filed within the mandatory 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), when detention is required by statute. Chief Judge Schiltz nonetheless granted a limited stay of removal, extended through December 22, 2025, specifically to allow Walter A. time to seek further habeas relief concerning USCIS's deferred action grant.

The Instant Petition and Motions

Walter A. filed this Petition and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on December 19, 2025. The Petition asserts he is detained in violation of: (1) due process under the U.S. Constitution; (2) the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which protects the right to seek habeas relief); (3) the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and (4) the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He sought continuation of the stay of removal and an expedited hearing on his effort to enforce USCIS's deferred action grant.

Respondents — ICE officials, the DHS Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Port Isabel Detention Center warden — moved to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas, where Walter A. is physically held. Respondents argue: (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which bars district courts from hearing challenges to the execution of removal orders; (2) Walter A. is improperly using habeas to seek transfer back to Minnesota; and (3) he is re-raising previously rejected arguments.

Court's Analysis

Jurisdiction

The court found — for the limited purpose of extending the stay — that it has subject matter jurisdiction at this stage. The court acknowledged that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) bars review of the government's decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders, citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), and Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999). However, the court, citing Sepulveda Ayala v. Bondi, 794 F. Supp. 3d 901 (W.D. Wash. 2025), found § 1252(g) does not bar jurisdiction here because Walter A.'s claims arise from the government's decision to grant him deferred action combined with ICE's subsequent refusal to honor it — not simply from a challenge to the execution of a removal order.

SIJ Status and Deferred Action

The court explained the statutory framework for SIJ status under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J), which requires a juvenile court dependency finding, a best-interest determination, and DHS consent. SIJ status requires physical presence in the United States; removal would eliminate that status and foreclose meaningful judicial review.

Regarding deferred action, the court noted that once granted, the government has represented it will not proceed against the individual. The court cited a June 6, 2025 USCIS Policy Alert (PA-2025-07) stating that individuals with deferred action based on SIJ classification will generally retain that status until their validity periods expire. The court observed that if deferred action status did not preclude removal while in effect, granting it would be meaningless, citing district court decisions that have granted habeas relief in similar circumstances.

Venue

The court acknowledged the venue dispute as presenting a colorable and complicated legal question. Under Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), for core habeas petitions challenging physical confinement, jurisdiction lies only in the district of confinement — here, the Southern District of Texas. Walter A. counters that the St. Paul ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations office retained authority over his detention, and that his transfer to Texas was retaliatory and related to his habeas filing. The court did not resolve this issue, reserving it for full briefing.

Extension of the Stay

The court exercised its authority to extend the existing stay of removal to maintain the status quo and allow full briefing and argument. It noted that Respondents had not yet addressed the merits of Walter A.'s claims because their motion focused on venue and jurisdiction. The court concluded that Walter A. faces imminent irreparable harm — loss of SIJ status and foreclosure of judicial review — while extension of the stay causes no corresponding harm to Respondents.

Disposition