Primero Garcia v. Barr

Background

Narciso Primero Garcia sought a temporary restraining order against William P. Barr, Chad Wolf, Matthew Albence, and David W. Jennings, sued in their official capacities as United States officials. He asked the court to stop his removal while he pursued immigration relief and to order his release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, or alternatively require a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

Garcia was a citizen of Guatemala who came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor. A California court appointed his uncle as his legal guardian after finding that Garcia’s parents had abandoned, abused, and neglected him and that returning him to Guatemala was not in his best interests. Garcia then applied for Special Immigrant Juvenile status. Despite an injunction in a related lawsuit protecting certain people with pending Special Immigrant Juvenile petitions, the respondents removed Garcia to Guatemala on June 13, 2019. Garcia stated that gang members attacked him twice during the following six months.

After the related case settled, the court determined that Garcia had been a member of the protected class, held the defendants in civil contempt, and ordered his return to the United States. Immigration and Customs Enforcement returned him on February 12, 2020, and placed him in custody. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services then granted Garcia Special Immigrant Juvenile status. Garcia moved to reopen his removal proceedings, and that motion remained pending when he filed this request. An immigration judge had stayed his removal, but Garcia said Immigration and Customs Enforcement still intended to remove him.

Mootness and jurisdiction

The respondents argued that the request was moot because the immigration judge had already stayed Garcia’s removal. The court disagreed. It reasoned that, if Garcia’s motion to reopen were denied, he could be removed before he had an opportunity to seek another stay from the Board of Immigration Appeals. The existing stay also did not resolve Garcia’s request for release or a custody hearing. The court therefore found that the motion was not moot.

The court also concluded that it had jurisdiction. Federal law generally limits district-court review of removal orders, but the court found that Garcia was not challenging the already-executed removal order or asking the court to decide whether he was removable. Instead, his request arose from the grant of Special Immigrant Juvenile status and sought to preserve his ability to litigate his motion to reopen. The court also reasoned that allowing his re-removal could undermine the contempt sanctions previously imposed in the related case.

Temporary restraining order

A temporary restraining order uses the same standard as a preliminary injunction. The requesting party must show a likely chance of success, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that relief serves the public interest.

The court found that Garcia was likely to succeed on the merits of his underlying request to fully litigate his motion to reopen while remaining in the United States. It reasoned that Special Immigrant Juvenile status likely requires the person to remain in the United States to maintain that status and that removing Garcia could eliminate the practical benefit of that status. The court also found a real risk that removal would prevent Garcia from fully pursuing his motion to reopen, particularly in light of the attacks he experienced in Guatemala.

The court found a strong likelihood of irreparable harm because Garcia’s prior attacks suggested a substantial risk of future harm if he were removed. It further found that the balance of equities and the public interest favored Garcia, even though the order would increase the respondents’ administrative burden. The court emphasized that the proceedings arose from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s failure to comply with the earlier injunction.

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins therefore granted in part Garcia’s motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoined the respondents and those acting with them from removing Garcia while he pursued immigration relief. The injunction would end upon specified events, including a final nonappealable decision vacating the removal order, Garcia’s failure to pursue required administrative appeals and stays, or a decision by a federal court of appeals on a motion to stay removal.

Detention

The court did not order Garcia’s immediate release because he had not shown that his detention was indefinite or had lasted long enough to be considered prolonged under the authorities discussed in the opinion. However, the final order required the respondents either to release Garcia or provide him with a bond or custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge within 60 days. At that hearing, the respondents had to justify Garcia’s continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.