Francisco D’Costa v. Warden of the Immigration Detention Facility, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas grants in part and denies in part Francisco D’Costa’s motion to enforce a prior order staying his removal. The court finds that D’Costa’s removal to India violated the court’s order and his due process rights concerning his pending immigration motion to reopen. The court orders the Government to facilitate his return to the United States and to file an advisory describing the steps and timeline for doing so, while denying without prejudice requests for contempt findings and discovery.

Holdings

1. D’Costa’s removal was unlawful because the Government removed him despite a clear district court order prohibiting his removal, and the inadvertent nature of the removal did not alter its unlawfulness.
2. When an individual is unlawfully removed in violation of a court order, facilitating the individual’s return may be necessary to provide the process and case posture the individual would have had absent the unlawful removal; here, return to the United States was the only remedy that would adequately accomplish that objective.
3. The Court had subject matter jurisdiction over D’Costa’s claim that removal before adjudication of his statutory motion to reopen would deprive him of due process; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) did not strip jurisdiction over a claim seeking a meaningful opportunity to pursue that motion rather than directly challenging the removal order.
4. The Court denied without prejudice Petitioner’s requests for a finding of civil contempt, monetary sanctions, and discovery, leaving Petitioner free to renew those requests in separate filings if necessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether D’Costa’s removal was unlawful because it violated the district court’s order staying removal.
2. Whether facilitating D’Costa’s return to the United States was an appropriate remedy for his unlawful removal.
3. Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over D’Costa’s claim that removal before adjudication of his motion to reopen would violate due process.
4. Whether the Court should find Respondents in civil contempt and order discovery concerning the removal.

Disposition

other