Xie v. Albarran

Background

Yangling Xie is a citizen of China subject to a final order of removal. She filed a petition seeking a court order concerning her detention and an application for an emergency temporary restraining order before an appointment with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She feared that she would be detained again. Immigration officials did detain her at the appointment, and the respondents disclosed that they had decided several days earlier to revoke her supervised release.

The court then issued a temporary restraining order requiring the respondents to release Xie from custody. The court found at that stage that Xie could pursue her challenge to the July 22 re-detention and had raised serious questions about whether the detention violated an injunction issued in an earlier related proceeding. The court later required the respondents to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue and allowed supplemental briefing about whether the court could stop future detention and removal while Xie sought a stay of removal in immigration court.

Preliminary-injunction analysis

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Xie had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favored her, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court stated that a lesser showing of serious questions about the merits could sometimes suffice if the balance of hardships strongly favored the applicant and the other requirements were met. Because the respondents are government entities, the balance-of-hardships and public-interest considerations were treated together.

The court concluded that Xie had not raised serious questions or shown a likelihood of success on her claim that future re-detention would violate the prior injunction. That injunction barred re-detention unless the respondents obtained a travel document and followed specified procedures for revoking supervised release, including adequate notice and an interview. The court found that Xie had received nearly two months’ notice of the stated basis for revocation and therefore had not shown that future re-detention to carry out her removal would be unlawful.

The court also concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear a particular type of dispute—to stop Xie’s removal until the immigration court decided her pending requests to reopen her case and stay removal. Because it lacked authority to stay removal, the court also held that it could not use the federal All Writs Act to stay removal while the habeas petition was pending.

The court distinguished claims challenging unlawful practices in carrying out a removal order. It stated that it retained jurisdiction over due-process claims involving such practices. The record showed that Xie had severe mental illness and that her health could be endangered if the respondents failed to provide adequate care during detention and removal. The court therefore stated that it could order necessary safeguards to reduce threats to her health, even though it could not stop the removal itself.

Ruling and further orders

The court denied Xie’s request for a preliminary injunction without prejudice. Because Xie had not met the threshold showing concerning likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits, the court did not decide the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.

Given the incomplete record and possible health risks, the court ordered the respondents to file a status report by September 28, 2026, stating whether they intended to re-detain Xie, the basis for that action, and the anticipated date and time of detention and removal. It also ordered counsel to meet and confer by October 12, 2026, about appropriate health safeguards and required the parties to file either an agreed stipulation or a joint statement identifying disputed issues.