Court
D. Ariz.
Decided
October 29, 2026
Docket
2:26-cv-06601-JCH (ECF No. 37)
Judge
John C. Hinderaker, District Judge.
Outcome
Relief granted in part
Disposition
Order to enforce the judgment of 6 October 2026. The plaintiff’s requests granted to the extent set out. The defendants’ status report due on 29 October 2026 required to give, for each outstanding step, a completion date and the responsible official, and to state the plaintiff’s location and physical condition and how they were verified, with a declaration from an official with personal knowledge of efforts to coordinate with Equatorial Guinean officials. Hearing set for 2 November 2026, to be vacated if the defendants showed by noon that day that the plaintiff would be aboard the flights of 4 November 2026.
Nationality
Native and citizen of Egypt, holding deferral of removal to Egypt under the Convention Against Torture (as recorded in the judgment of 6 October 2026).
Third country
Equatorial Guinea
The court acknowledged progress. The plaintiff’s travel had been ticketed: on 27 October a deportation officer, Jose L. Rosiles, entered a tentative reservation for travel on 4 November 2026. The defendants had identified Washington Dulles as the port of entry, subject to issuance of a travel letter, and had identified what transit through Casablanca on Royal Air Maroc required. The Deputy Chief of Mission, Kristen K. Grauer, had advised that the Embassy could issue a travel letter. The court added: “Nearly all of that progress is dated on or after the day of the Court’s October 27 Order.”
It found the defendants’ two latest status reports deficient. The later one omitted four of the eleven steps entirely; for most steps neither gave a responsible official or a date; neither identified where the plaintiff was held or described his physical condition; and the supporting declarations of Deportation Officer Andrea Chiriboga Villacis did not say which statements rested on personal knowledge. It noted: “No United States official is reported to have spoken with or seen Plaintiff.” As before, the record reflected no request to Equatorial Guinean authorities for his release or departure: “The Court is especially concerned with the apparent lack of progress and transparency on this point.”
The court recorded the plaintiff’s evidence of a government-contracted aircraft, flight VELUX13, scheduled from San Juan to Conakry on 28 and 29 October 2026, made no finding about it, and required a declaration on government aircraft. It also required the defendants to explain what the ticket coding “DEPU” signifies and, if the code designates him as a person being deported or as unescorted, why that coding is appropriate for someone returning to the United States under parole pursuant to the court’s order.
It reminded the defendants that it had ordered the plaintiff’s return on 6 October 2026: “Despite that progress, Defendants appear to bristle at their obligation to follow the Court’s explicit orders.” It listed seven matters lying exclusively within their control that remained undone twenty-three days later, and stated: “Defendants have appeared to hesitate to effectuate the relief the Court has ordered.” It set a hearing for 2 November 2026, which defence counsel and the declarant were to attend in person, unless the defendants showed by noon that day that the plaintiff would be aboard Royal Air Maroc Flight 262 from Malabo at 5:45 a.m. on 4 November and the connecting flight from Casablanca to Washington Dulles.
Caution
An enforcement order. The court cited the law of civil contempt but did not hold the defendants in contempt. The judgment of 6 October 2026 and the order of 27 October 2026 are recorded separately in this register.
The hearing took place on 2 November 2026. According to its minutes, government counsel said that the plaintiff was scheduled to be on the flight from Malabo to the United States on 4 November 2026, and the plaintiff’s counsel raised concerns about the itinerary and said that two lawyers from the firm would travel to Casablanca to meet him. Later in the hearing the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, Timothy Courchaine, read into the record an order of the Ninth Circuit staying “this Court’s Order dated October 23, 2026.” The court then adjourned, recording: “The Ninth Circuit having stayed the Court’s dispositive Order, the Court adjourns the hearing without any further orders.” The minutes of the hearing (ECF No. 47) do not say whether the two descriptions refer to the same order, and the Ninth Circuit’s order itself was not read. The documents read end on 2 November 2026 and do not record whether the plaintiff travelled on 4 November.
The record gives two dates for the immigration judge’s grant of deferral of removal: 1 October 2025 in the judgment of 6 October 2026, and 2 October 2025 in the government’s Status Update #6, which this order repeats.
Facilitation of return
Enforcement of judgment
Civil contempt
Parole
Travel documents
Third-country removal
The court's own text
Public copy
Read from the public federal court record.
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.
← All decisions in the register