Zang X. v. Blanche

Background

Zang X. filed a petition challenging the legality of his ongoing detention by federal immigration authorities. He is subject to a final removal order. Respondents stated that they had obtained travel documents for his removal to Laos and that a removal flight was scheduled before September 18, 2026. Zang X. then moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to preserve the existing situation temporarily. He asked the court to stop Respondents from removing him until the petition could be decided and to order his immediate release.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standards used for a preliminary injunction. It explained that Zang X. had to show a fair chance of succeeding on the merits, likely irreparable harm without emergency relief, a favorable balance of harms, and that the injunction would serve the public interest.

The court concluded that Zang X. had not shown a fair chance of success. As to his request to stop removal, the court expressed serious doubts that it had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which generally limits courts’ authority to hear claims arising from certain federal immigration decisions and actions. The court also stated that an exception for purely legal questions did not appear to apply on this record.

The court rejected, for purposes of the temporary restraining order, Zang X.’s argument that Respondents violated federal regulations by revoking his order of supervision and taking him into custody. The court found that the sequence described in the record appeared to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13: officials identified changed circumstances indicating a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, notified him of the reasons for revocation, and conducted an informal interview promptly after his return to custody. The court stated that obtaining a travel document and scheduling removal constituted changed circumstances under the regulation.

The court also considered Zang X.’s argument that Respondents had not shown that they considered all facts required by the regulation. It distinguished a prior related proceeding because, unlike that case, Zang X.’s revocation notice gave specific reasons: ICE had obtained a travel document and scheduled his removal within the next few weeks. In a footnote, the court further stated that Zang X. was unlikely to succeed on his claim that continued detention violated the Fifth Amendment because his removal appeared likely to occur soon and he therefore was unlikely to show a risk of indefinite detention. The court also noted that, on the current record, he appeared to have waived that claim.

Disposition

Because Zang X. did not show a likelihood of success, the court did not find it necessary to conclude that the other emergency-relief factors favored him. It was also not persuaded that the balance of harms or public interest favored an injunction without a showing of likely success. Judge Menendez ordered that Zang X.’s motion for a temporary restraining order was DENIED. The opinion did not state a disposition of the underlying detention petition.