Siguencia-Romero v. Joyce

Background

Emma Siguencia-Romero and her children, Evelyn Saeteros Siguencia and E.S.S., are citizens of Ecuador who entered the United States in July 2021. An Immigration Judge ordered their removal on January 23, 2023, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that order on September 29, 2023, making it final. Emma had a motion to reopen pending before the Board.

ICE detained the petitioners after an October 29, 2025 hearing in New York City and later transferred them to the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas. Emma was detained with E.S.S., while Evelyn was detained elsewhere at the same center. The petitioners alleged that ICE gave no reason for revoking their release other than the final removal order and did not adequately consider their planned applications for a U visa and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status.

The amended petition asserted seven claims, including violations of substantive and procedural due process, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, statutory limits on detention, and agency procedures. The petitioners moved for a temporary restraining order, which the court distinguished from a preliminary injunction because of the immediate relief requested and the limited time for the respondents to respond. They asked the court to stop their removal and detention, return them to the court’s jurisdiction, reunite Emma with Evelyn, and facilitate their participation in an upcoming family-court hearing.

Court’s analysis

For emergency relief, the petitioners had to show irreparable harm—harm that could not adequately be repaired later—and a sufficient likelihood of success or serious questions supporting relief. Because the requested order would affect government action under an immigration scheme, the court applied the requirement of a clear or substantial likelihood of success. The Immigration and Nationality Act also requires clear and convincing evidence that execution of a final removal order is legally prohibited before a court may stop that removal.

Request to stop removal

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the request to stop the petitioners’ removal. Section 1252(g) generally bars courts from hearing claims arising from the government’s execution of removal orders. The court concluded that the request directly challenged the government’s decision to execute the petitioners’ final removal order, even though the petitioners characterized the decision as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also stated that a challenge based on waiting for the Board to decide Emma’s motion to reopen was barred by Section 1252(a)(5), which makes a petition for review in a federal appeals court the exclusive method for judicial review of a removal order.

Because the court lacked jurisdiction over the removal challenge, the petitioners could not show the required likelihood of success for that requested relief. The court denied the request to stop removal. It added that, even if the petitioners could show likely success, they had not presented additional reasons why their removal would cause irreparable harm in these circumstances.

Detention-related requests

The court did not decide the merits of the petitioners’ detention claims. It rejected their argument that an alleged constitutional violation automatically establishes irreparable harm. The court also noted that the petitioners did not allege violations of the First, Fourth, or Eighth Amendments, for which some courts have presumed irreparable harm in other circumstances.

The petitioners argued that detention interfered with their ability to complete their U-visa and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status applications. The court found that they did not explain how missing an upcoming family-court appearance or having delayed communication with counsel would ultimately cause those applications to be denied.

The court emphasized that a temporary restraining order, issued before the respondents had a meaningful opportunity to be heard, requires an injury so urgent that it cannot wait for that opportunity. The court found no detention-related injury meeting that standard. It noted that the petitioners’ apparent urgency arose from learning that ICE planned to remove them, but the court had already determined that it lacked jurisdiction over a challenge to that removal. The court also observed that there were serious questions about whether it had jurisdiction over the detention challenges, but it did not resolve those questions at this stage.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan denied the petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to renewal upon a showing that continued detention would cause irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction. The respondents were directed to file an additional response addressing the detention-related claims by November 7, 2025.