Doe v. Guadian

An immigration judge granted Doe deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture in July 2024, finding that he was more likely than not to be tortured by the government, or with its acquiescence, if returned to Mexico. The finding rested on his substantial assistance to the Department of Justice and his testimony against defendants affiliated with Mexican drug cartels. Released on an order of supervision in November 2024, he lived in Maryland until he was taken into custody at a routine ICE check-in in January 2026. The court recorded that “Without any notice,” on 10 July 2026 the government removed him to Guatemala; Guatemalan officials refused him and handed him to Mexican officials to be returned to Mexico, but a Mexican consular official, on learning of his protection, had him returned to the United States the same day. On about 15 or 16 July 2026 he was removed a second time, allegedly directly to Mexico, and again returned. On 21 July 2026 the government purportedly served a Notice of Termination of Deferral of Removal, stating that the Department of State had received diplomatic assurances from the Mexican government that he would not be tortured and that the Acting ICE Director and the Secretary of State had found them reliable. The notice “gave no other information or details about the diplomatic assurances,” and bore no Spanish translation although Doe does not speak or read English. The parties agreed that this form of termination “is extremely rare.” On 1 August 2026 he was deported to Mexico, where he has been in hiding. The court held that it had jurisdiction despite 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4) and § 1252(g), because Doe challenged the process used to end his protection, not his removal order, and the route the government chose left no record for a court of appeals to review: “This Court cannot accept the nonsensical result that Doe is unable to obtain judicial review of these executive actions by virtue of the path to termination chosen by the Executive itself.” Adopting the due process analysis of Khouzam v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2008), which the parties agreed is the only case to have addressed termination on diplomatic assurances, the court found that Doe “was afforded no notice and no hearing whatsoever,” and concluded that “the manner in which Defendants revoked Doe’s CAT Deferral likely violated his procedural due process rights, exceeding the Defendants’ lawful authority.” It took judicial notice of statements by United States officials, and of State Department travel warnings, that “seemingly contradict any diplomatic assurances that the Mexican government can control cartels’ unlawful actions and protect Doe from torture.” Finding the remaining factors met, the court stressed that “There is an immense public interest in ensuring that persons who risk their personal safety to assist the government in prosecuting wrongdoing are not placed in harm’s way by the very entity they assisted,” and, following Noem v. Abrego Garcia, ordered the government to facilitate his return.

Caution Interim relief only: a temporary restraining order. Much of the account of the removals comes from the complaint and declarations, and the second removal is described as “allegedly” directly to Mexico. The court said an evidentiary hearing would be needed to find the facts about the process provided. It ruled on the process used, not on whether the assurances were reliable or the termination valid. The opinion’s record citations refer to the sealed original case, and the court said an amended version would issue once the pseudonymous refiling was complete. A later memorandum opinion of 14 September 2026 (Document 49) denied the government’s motion for reconsideration, converted the order into a preliminary injunction, recorded that Doe had been returned to the United States, and recorded the government’s new account that the termination notice was served on 1 August 2026, the day of his removal, rather than on 21 July 2026.

CAT deferral Diplomatic assurances Termination without notice Due process Third-country removal Chain refoulement Jurisdiction Jurisdiction 1252(g) Judicial review Access to counsel Remedy

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