Toledo-Ortega v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Background

Jose Hernando Toledo-Ortega, a citizen of Ecuador, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on December 19, 2019, and placed in immigration custody. An immigration judge later ordered his removal from the United States and denied relief from removal. The removal order became administratively final on March 31, 2020, after the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his notice of appeal because he had not filed a proper fee or fee waiver.

Toledo-Ortega filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from detention because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He said that persistent nose bleeding, breathing problems, and headaches made him especially vulnerable to infection and that the respondents had violated or been deliberately indifferent to his right to safety.

He later asked for a preliminary injunction preventing his removal and ordering his immediate release. He argued that removal would violate his right to reopen his immigration proceedings based on changed conditions in Ecuador. At an April 29 hearing, the government agreed not to remove him until the court ruled on his request. Meanwhile, the immigration judge denied his motion to reopen on May 6, 2020. Toledo-Ortega had not appealed that decision or requested an administrative stay of removal.

Court’s Analysis

A preliminary injunction is temporary court-ordered relief. Courts ordinarily evaluate four factors: the likelihood of success, possible irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest. The court said it did not need to evaluate those factors because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to decide the requested relief.

The court first addressed mootness. A claim is moot when changed circumstances have already provided the requested relief and no longer require court action. The court found that Toledo-Ortega’s request to stay removal while his motion to reopen was pending was moot because the government’s agreement had effectively paused removal during that period, and the immigration judge had since ruled on the motion.

The court also noted that Toledo-Ortega’s request for release was specific to the Sherburne County Jail. Because he had been transferred to the Kandiyohi County Jail, the court stated that this claim appeared to be moot as well.

The court separately considered 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which limits federal-court jurisdiction over claims arising from the government’s decision to commence immigration proceedings, adjudicate immigration cases, or execute removal orders. Toledo-Ortega argued that he was challenging ICE’s legal authority to act, rather than its discretionary decision. The court rejected that distinction, relying on Eighth Circuit precedent holding that § 1252(g) applies when a claim is directly connected to a decision to execute a removal order, whether the decision is discretionary or not.

The court concluded that Toledo-Ortega’s requested stay of removal depended on fact-specific questions about conditions in Ecuador, conditions at the jail, and alleged due-process violations. It found that the narrow exception for habeas claims presenting purely legal questions did not apply. Because § 1252(g) deprived the court of jurisdiction over the relief sought, the court denied the motion.

Disposition

On May 28, 2020, Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Jose Hernando Toledo-Ortega’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was DENIED. The opinion did not address the ordinary preliminary-injunction factors because the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.