Torres-Jurado v. Trump

Background

Edison Torres-Jurado, a native and citizen of Ecuador, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1979. In 2002, he attempted to drive an undocumented individual across the United States-Canada border for money. He pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i) and received five years of probation in 2003.

An immigration judge ordered Torres-Jurado removed to Ecuador in April 2005. He did not appeal, so the order became final. ICE released him in July 2005 because it determined that removal could not be carried out in the reasonably foreseeable future after Ecuador refused to issue the necessary identity and travel documents. The order of supervision stated that a stay of removal was granted indefinitely. Torres-Jurado regularly checked in with ICE afterward.

ICE detained Torres-Jurado during a check-in in November 2017 and told him that the stay had been revoked. He sought relief in a prior related proceeding, where the district court denied his request for a stay of removal but ordered his release from detention because removal was not reasonably foreseeable. The appeal from the denial of a stay was later dismissed as moot.

After ICE announced in October 2023 that Torres-Jurado would be detained at a scheduled check-in unless he arrived with a plan to leave the United States voluntarily, he moved in this case for an emergency stay of removal pending resolution of his claims.

Jurisdiction

The defendants argued that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9) barred the court from hearing Torres-Jurado’s request. The court rejected both arguments. It explained that Torres-Jurado was not challenging the validity of the final removal order or ICE’s discretionary decision to execute it. Instead, he challenged whether ICE could revoke the long-standing stay without complying with the Constitution and applicable law. The court concluded that this collateral legal and constitutional challenge was not barred by those provisions.

Merits of the Stay Request

The court applied the traditional four-factor test for a stay involving the government: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without a stay, harm to other interested parties, and the public interest. The court found that the first two factors were especially important and that the final two factors weighed together because the government was the opposing party.

Likelihood of success. The court found that Torres-Jurado was likely to succeed on his procedural due-process claim. Procedural due process generally requires a protected liberty or property interest, plus constitutionally adequate procedures before the government deprives a person of that interest.

The court found that Torres-Jurado had a meaningful liberty interest in the ICE stay. The stay had been in effect for eighteen years, had no end date or renewal requirement, and had allowed him to maintain community ties developed over nearly fifty years in the United States. Revoking the stay and removing him would likely involve physical restraint, and ICE had indicated that it would detain him if he appeared without a plan to leave voluntarily.

The court also found that the stay did not state that ICE could revoke it without prior notice. Although ICE had authority to revoke the stay and Torres-Jurado did not have a right to remain in the United States indefinitely, the government still had to provide meaningful notice and an opportunity to respond before revoking it. The court held that the 2017 revocation was unlawful because ICE had not made the findings required to revoke the order of supervision and had instead stated only that a travel document appeared forthcoming. The court therefore concluded that the ICE stay remained in effect.

The court determined that the government’s October 2023 notice did not satisfy due process. ICE had not told Torres-Jurado that it considered the stay annulled, explained why it was annulled, or given him an opportunity to present facts relevant to revocation. A full adversarial hearing was not required, but he had to receive an opportunity to submit relevant evidence before a revocation decision. The court found that the government’s abrupt and predetermined notice failed to provide that opportunity.

Irreparable harm. The court found irreparable harm because Torres-Jurado alleged a constitutional violation and ICE intended to detain him at the October 30, 2023 check-in. The court also relied on the principle that deprivation of liberty can itself constitute irreparable harm.

Balance of equities and public interest. These factors favored Torres-Jurado. The court recognized the potential financial and emotional hardship that abrupt removal could impose on his family, including his wife and child, and found a public interest in maintaining family unity and avoiding extreme hardship. The court found that a temporary delay would cause limited harm to the defendants, particularly because Torres-Jurado had lived under the ICE stay for eighteen years. The stay would not invalidate the final removal order; it would require ICE to comply with the law and Constitution before seeking removal despite the stay.

Disposition

The court granted Torres-Jurado’s motion for a stay of removal pending resolution of the action. It prohibited the defendants from removing him without first providing a constitutionally adequate opportunity to respond to the annulment of the ICE stay. The defendants may ask the court to lift the stay by showing that they complied with the order. The court also directed the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by November 30, 2023.