Ms. Mendoza Palacios was ordered removed on 2 August 2019 but granted withholding of removal as to El Salvador under the Convention Against Torture, because she had shown that she would more likely than not be tortured there. She was released on an order of supervision, has no criminal convictions, and was not alleged to have breached her supervision. ICE detained her without prior notice on 14 February 2026 and the next day served notices of its intent to remove her to Mexico; at the informal interview she said “she doesn’t have any family member in Mexico.” After the court entered a temporary restraining order, an asylum officer gave her a telephone “third country screening” on 10 March 2026. By her account she described being kidnapped in Mexico in about October 2012 by “gang members acting in concert with a uniformed police officer” and held for about two weeks. The officer found that she “did not establish that it is more likely than not that [she] will be persecuted or tortured in Mexico.” The government filed no opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court held that she “has shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that until and unless an immigration judge concurs with the asylum officer’s determination that she lacks a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, due process precludes her removal to Mexico.” It found that “a single review by an asylum officer creates an unacceptably high risk of erroneous deprivation,” and that the government had given no reason why that risk is any lower for a third-country removal proposed years after the original proceedings. The court declined to defer the case because of the D.V.D. class action or the pending appeal in Bojorquez v. Baker, because “Permitting removal without adjudicating her claim of entitlement to IJ review would effectively constitute ruling for Respondents on the merits.” On detention, it held that the government’s refusal to provide immigration judge review was “the source of delay,” entitling her to an order that the government “either (a) refer her case for immigration judge review, or (b) release her from detention.” It described the threatened harm as “persecution, torture, or death.”
Caution Interim relief only. The operative terms are in a separate preliminary injunction order of the same day (ECF No. 24), which is not in the file. The court did not decide the government’s motion to dismiss. The kidnapping account is the petitioner’s description of what she told the asylum officer, not a finding of the court. The docket shows a final joint status report on 14 April 2026 and an order of 21 April 2026 dismissing the petition as moot without prejudice; the reason for mootness is not stated in the docket text reviewed.
Third-country removal Withholding of removal CAT Reasonable fear Due process Country-specific nature of withholding Redetention Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) D.V.D. class action Habeas jurisdiction
The court's own text
Public copy Copy held by the Coalition
Read in full from the text of the memorandum opinion.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.