Ijeoma C. v. Bondi

Background

Ijeoma C. is a Nigerian national who entered the United States lawfully in 2017. She is the sole caregiver for her child, who is a U.S. citizen. On April 19, 2023, she was convicted in federal court for Conspiracy to Commit International Money Laundering. According to her petition, she provided substantial assistance to the government in connection with that case and, as a result, faces threats of retaliation — including death threats — from individuals involved in fraud schemes if she is returned to Nigeria.

Ijeoma C. has several immigration applications pending: (1) a petition under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) seeking immigrant status as an abused spouse of a U.S. citizen; (2) an asylum application; (3) an application for withholding of removal to Nigeria under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227 and 1231(b)(3); and (4) a request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. She has not yet had interviews or hearings on any of these applications.

ICE took her into custody on December 4, 2025. On December 22, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Final Administrative Removal Order directing her deportation to Nigeria, despite the pending applications. She also alleges she was denied access to counsel during her detention. She filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a court order requiring the government to justify holding a person in custody — on December 23, 2025, and the case was assigned to Judge Bryan on December 29, 2025. On December 30, 2025, she filed the emergency motion at issue here.

The Motion and Requested Relief

Ijeoma C. requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) doing two things: (1) prohibiting Respondents from transporting her out of the District of Minnesota; and (2) prohibiting her removal (deportation) to Nigeria. The court granted the first request and denied the second.

Legal Standard

Courts in the Eighth Circuit evaluate TRO motions using the four-factor Dataphase test: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the balance of harms between the parties; (3) the probability of success on the merits; and (4) the public interest. No single factor is controlling; courts weigh all circumstances to determine whether justice requires preserving the status quo until the case is resolved. The moving party bears the burden of establishing these factors.

Analysis

Irreparable Harm

The court found that if Ijeoma C. were transferred out of the district, she would suffer irreparable harm — harm that cannot be undone after the fact. Specifically: she could lose access to her attorney, be unable to meaningfully participate in her own litigation, and her pending applications for asylum, VAWA relief, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection could become moot. The court also noted that the existing Final Administrative Removal Order made it likely she would be deported to Nigeria, where she faces persecution and death threats. The court quoted a prior district court decision for the proposition that, while access to counsel is not a constitutional right in civil proceedings, deprivation of access to retained counsel is plainly harmful. It further cited authority characterizing unlawful detention as a "prime example of irreparable harm."

Balance of Harms

The court found no indication that Respondents would suffer any harm from an order temporarily prohibiting her transfer out of the district while the petition is pending. It cited a prior district court order in a similar habeas case and Eighth Circuit authority recognizing that equities strongly favor an injunction when the challenged government action would have an irreversible impact and the injunction would impose no present harm on the government.

Public Interest

The court found that the public interest in ensuring due process, judicial review, and the rule of law outweighs the public interest in deporting Ijeoma C. before her habeas petition is reviewed.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The court addressed this factor briefly in a footnote. It noted that Respondents had not yet filed a response, but observed that Ijeoma C.'s petition asserts she is being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which applies to persons seeking admission into the United States. The court stated that courts across the country have "overwhelmingly rejected" the government's interpretation of § 1225 in this context, citing one case noting the government had been told "nearly 300 times (and counting) that its mandatory-detention scheme is unlawful." Because all four Dataphase factors favored temporary relief, the court said it need not analyze likelihood of success further.

Bond Requirement

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) generally requires a party obtaining a TRO to post a bond (a sum of money to compensate the other side if the injunction was wrongly issued). The court waived this requirement, finding that the TRO seeks to prevent constitutional deprivations, that Respondents face no identifiable risk of monetary loss, and that the matter is closely connected to important public interests.

Disposition

The court denied the broader request to immediately prohibit her deportation to Nigeria outright. The court also directed Respondents to file an expedited response to the underlying habeas petition and indicated it anticipates issuing a decision on the petition within ten days of receiving that response.