Yaide v. Wolf

Background

Abderaman Oumar Yaide, a native and citizen of Chad, had lived in the United States without legal status since 2009. His earlier applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture had been denied. Yaide later came out as gay, and the opinion states that Chad had criminalized same-sex relations. He feared imprisonment, torture, and death if returned to Chad.

On October 24, 2019, Yaide asked the immigration court to reopen his applications based on changed circumstances, including his sexual orientation and deteriorating conditions for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in Chad. While that request was pending, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed him. He was flown from Sacramento to Chicago, then to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and finally to N’Djamena, Chad. The opinion states that he was handcuffed and accompanied by two immigration officers during part of the journey.

Yaide filed the habeas petition underlying this order while he was traveling from Chicago to Addis Ababa. He sought a temporary restraining order requiring the Government to return him to the United States. He asserted, among other claims, that his deportation violated procedural due process by preventing his motion to reopen from being adjudicated.

Jurisdiction

The Government argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for two reasons. First, it argued that Yaide was no longer “in custody” when he filed the petition because he had already been removed. Second, it argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred the court from hearing a challenge to the execution of his removal order.

The court rejected both arguments. It held that Yaide satisfied the custody requirement because he filed the petition while he was still handcuffed, escorted by immigration officers, and confined on an airplane during the removal process. The court distinguished cases involving people who had already arrived in the country to which they had been removed.

The court also held that § 1252(g) did not eliminate jurisdiction over Yaide’s petition. His claim alleged constitutional or statutory error in the removal process—specifically, that removal could deprive him of the opportunity to have his motion to reopen decided—rather than merely seeking to change the discretionary result of his removal proceedings.

Temporary restraining order

A temporary restraining order is emergency relief. The court applied the factors requiring a showing of likely success on the merits or serious questions about the merits, likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.

The court concluded that Yaide met that standard. It found that he had a constitutional right to procedural due process and a statutory right to file a motion to reopen. If he were imprisoned or killed in Chad, he would lose any opportunity to have that motion adjudicated. The court also found that the threatened loss of constitutional rights, torture, and death constituted irreparable harm; that the balance of hardships favored Yaide; and that the public interest in enforcing removal orders was outweighed by the public interest in preserving his constitutional rights.

Disposition

Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Yaide’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order was stayed until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 20, 2019, so the Government could seek relief from the Ninth Circuit. Once effective, the order required the Government to buy Yaide an airline ticket, coordinate his departure and travel, provide documents needed for his entry, allow him to enter the United States, and permit his attorneys to meet and accompany him through immigration and customs processing. The parties were required to inform the court if returning him within the stated timeline proved impossible.