Decisions

D. Minn. October 30, 2026 Third country: Central African Republic. Removed in late August 2026. Earlier, agents had “proposed” Mexico, which he declined because he was not from Mexico.

Disposition Motion for a preliminary injunction granted. Defendants ordered to “arrange for and facilitate Lopez’s return to the United States from the Central African Republic by taking all reasonable steps within their control to do so”, beginning with a request for Significant Public Benefit Parole by 6 November 2026; to bear the cost of his return; to return him to the District of Minnesota and not remove him from it while the case is pending; to restore him to the conditions of his order of supervision; to return his property and documents; and to report every seven days. Defendants “prohibited from shooting Lopez with rubber bullets or any other projectiles at close range or otherwise.” No security required.

The plaintiff, who holds withholding of removal to Nicaragua, was arrested in Minnesota on 15 January 2026, moved between detention facilities in Texas and Louisiana, and removed to the Central African Republic while a habeas petition in the Western District of Louisiana was pending. The court’s findings, drawn from his declaration and not rebutted by evidence, record that on 28 August 2026, when the detainees on a bus in Texas refused to get off it and board the aircraft, officers “began shooting at [Lopez and the others] from close range with projectiles”; that “After flying for two days and stopping briefly in Ghana and Sierra Leone, the airplane landed in the middle of the night in Bangui”; and that he lives in a building that “is guarded by armed personnel around the clock”, relying on the International Organization for Migration for food and water. The court set out a letter of May 2026 from Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau to ICE Director Todd Lyons confirming, “consistent with guidance issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on July 9, 2025, that the Department of State has received diplomatic assurances from the Government of the Central African Republic (CAR)” and had “determined those assurances to be credible and reliable.” The letter asked “that the Department of Homeland Security refrain from publicly discussing our cooperation with CAR on this matter.” The court observed that “the evidence presented includes no indication that any diplomatic assurances related specifically to the grave dangers known to the Department of State”, and that “it remains unclear whether the assurances include the part of the country outside of the control of the official Central African Republic government.” On irreparable harm: “He cannot leave the Central African Republic for lack of status, he depends on the charity of a third party to survive, and he fears bodily harm if he goes outside (essentially, he remains in a quasi-carceral setting even though he is no longer detained by ICE).” It noted that the defendants’ arguments, if correct, would create “an unreviewable circumvention of legal procedures, as nothing prevents the Central African Republic from removing Lopez to Nicaragua.” On the merits, it held him likely to succeed on his claims that ICE revoked his order of supervision without following 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13: “Defendants have offered no reasons at all for detaining Lopez, whether in a notice to him or in written submissions in this action”. His removal did not moot those claims: “Nor is there any legal authority suggesting that a deportation cures a wrongful detention.” Venue was proper in Minnesota because the action is not a habeas petition and the events of the revocation occurred there.

Third-country removal Revocation of supervision Informal interview Notice Due process Administrative Procedure Act Accardi doctrine Diplomatic assurances Facilitation of return Irreparable harm Onward transfer Venue Withholding of removal

Caution A preliminary injunction. The court decided only the claims about the revocation of his order of supervision and did not reach his claims about removal to the Central African Republic without a fear screening. The State Department letter (ECF No. 19-1) is not public; it is known only as the order quotes it. The order states that it does not adjudicate the validity of the immigration judge’s order or of DHS’s policy of third-country removals. On 3 November 2026 the defendants moved for a stay pending appeal (ECF No. 31) and filed a notice of interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 36). The Eighth Circuit docketed the appeal as No. 26-3276 on 4 November 2026, with the appellants’ brief due on 24 December 2026.

6th Cir. October 9, 2026 Third country: Ghana. The government planned to remove her there on 11 October 2026. The court records a State Department official’s declaration that Ghana “entered into an arrangement with the Department of State” to accept certain people, including her, and gave “assurances that aliens removed from the United States pursuant to this arrangement will not be subjected to persecution or torture in Ghana nor in any country they may be further transferred to.” She told the court that she had never visited Ghana and had no connections there.

Disposition Emergency motion for a stay of removal pending appeal denied.

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was ordered removed to Nigeria in 2013 by an immigration judge who at the same time granted her withholding of removal to that country. Detained when she reported in person on 21 September 2026, she was to be removed to Ghana on 11 October 2026 under the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of March 2025. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over her petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissed it, and she moved in the court of appeals for an emergency stay. The court held “that Ojukwu has not shown a likelihood of success because her stay motion pursues the same claims that the Supreme Court held did not warrant an injunction,” and described her claims as “squarely controlled” by the Supreme Court’s stays in the D.V.D. class action. She did not dispute that she is a member of the class. The court accepted that “class claims do not always bar individual claims”, but held that the class suit precludes the same “pattern and practice” claim in an individual case, and that she “fails to explain why her unique facts would establish the district court’s jurisdiction even if the D.V.D. district court lacked jurisdiction over the class claims.” On irreparable harm it found the evidence “(at most) in equipoise”: she cited “only dated or generalized statistics about Ghana’s generic country conditions”, while officials of Ghana “have credibly assured the Department of State that aliens like Ojukwu would not be tortured or persecuted in that country.” The court added: “A district court involuntarily forced her into a class action in a faraway venue and thereby undermined her ability to pursue her own equitable relief in a court closer to her Ohio home.”

Third-country removal Stay of removal D.V.D. class action Class relief Preclusion Withholding of removal Country-specific nature of withholding Diplomatic assurances Irreparable harm Due process Mandamus Contrary authority

Caution A ruling on an emergency motion for a stay, not a decision of the appeal, which continues: on 14 October 2026 the court set the appellant’s brief for 23 November 2026 and the appellees’ for 23 December 2026. Whether she was removed to Ghana is not recorded on the appeal docket as read on 7 November 2026. On the assurance, the court cites only the government’s declaration. The order does not mention D.A. v. Noem (D.D.C. 15 September 2025), recorded in this register, in which government counsel accepted that, on the plaintiffs’ allegations, Ghana appeared to be violating the assurances it had given about people sent there in September 2025. The class counsel practice advisory of 21 October 2026 cites the order as 2026 WL 3032742 and argues that, because class members are not seeking the same relief as the class, district courts should not refuse to hear their individual habeas petitions because of the class action. The district court’s decision, Ojukwu v. Lynch (N.D. Ohio 26 September 2026), is described in the entry for Rascol v. Raycraft, recorded in this register, but is not entered separately.