Santas Reyes Avila Garcia v. Kristi Noem et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Santas Reyes Avila Garcia’s second motion for a temporary restraining order concerning the adjudication of her T visa application and her removal. The court held that the amended claims were within its jurisdiction but that Plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or raised serious questions warranting emergency relief. The court also declined to determine, on the limited record, whether the denial of an administrative stay was arbitrary and capricious.

Holdings

1. Section 1252(g) did not bar jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims that Defendants were legally required to issue a bona fide determination before deciding her request for a stay of removal because those claims presented collateral legal questions rather than challenges to discretionary removal authority.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to a second TRO because she failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or raise a serious question going to the merits, and therefore failed to satisfy the applicable preliminary-relief standard.
3. Plaintiff did not establish a likelihood of success or a serious question on her due process theory because she identified no liberty or property interest and did not analyze the Matthews v. Eldridge factors; discretionary benefits do not create protected property interests.
4. Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success or a serious question that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(d)(1) required USCIS to issue a bona fide T visa determination before ICE decided whether to grant or deny an administrative stay.
5. Even assuming jurisdiction existed, Plaintiff did not establish entitlement to preliminary relief on an arbitrary-and-capricious challenge because the record and briefing were insufficient to evaluate the merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to consider claims that a bona fide T visa determination was required before ICE decided Plaintiff's request for a stay of removal.
2. Whether Plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions warranting a second temporary restraining order.
3. Whether Plaintiff established a due process claim based on the failure to issue a bona fide T visa determination before denial of her stay request.
4. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1227(d)(1) required USCIS to issue a bona fide determination before ICE exercised discretion on Plaintiff's administrative stay request.
5. Whether the record supported preliminary relief based on an alleged arbitrary-and-capricious denial of Plaintiff's stay request.

Disposition

denied