Mohamed v. Sessions

Background

Abdullahi Abukar Mohamed, a citizen of Somalia who had lived in the United States since 2014, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied those applications on October 18, 2016, ordered his removal, and Mohamed did not appeal.

In 2017, Mohamed applied to adjust his immigration status based on his marriage to a United States citizen. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into custody in March 2018 when he appeared for an interview concerning that application. He later asked the immigration court to reopen his asylum case based on changed conditions in Somalia. The immigration judge denied that request, and Mohamed appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. That appeal remained pending.

Mohamed filed a habeas petition seeking a stay of removal and release from detention. He also filed this motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to stop his removal. The government agreed not to deport him while the court considered the motion.

Jurisdiction

The court applied 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which generally bars courts from hearing claims arising from the Attorney General’s decision to begin immigration proceedings, decide immigration cases, or carry out removal orders. The court concluded that Mohamed’s request to stay his removal was directly connected to the decision to carry out his removal order.

The court rejected Mohamed’s argument that an exception for habeas claims involving a pure legal question applied. It found that his claims required a fact-intensive inquiry into whether conditions in Somalia had changed, rather than a challenge to the government’s interpretation of a statute.

The court also distinguished decisions from other district courts that had stayed removal orders in extraordinary circumstances. It concluded that those circumstances were not present here and that the procedures provided by the REAL ID Act offered an adequate and effective alternative to habeas relief.

Ruling

Because the court lacked jurisdiction over the request to stay removal, it did not apply the usual temporary-restraining-order factors, such as irreparable harm, the balance of harms, likelihood of success, and the public interest. Judge David S. Doty denied Mohamed’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order did not decide the merits of Mohamed’s asylum, withholding-of-removal, or Convention Against Torture claims.