Emetazi v. Warden, Richwood Correctional Center

Six days after denying a preliminary injunction, the court denied the petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, her motion for a stay of removal and her motion for limited reconsideration.

On the stay, it relied on Imran v. Harper and on a later Fifth Circuit panel decision, Gakou v. Warden of Prairieland Detention Ctr. (5th Cir. 10 October 2026): “To the extent that Petitioner seeks a stay of her removal, this Court has no jurisdiction under the binding authority of the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of § 1252(g).”

On the revocation of her release, the petitioner now asked for release under her existing order of supervision. The court said: “If anything, the appropriate remedy for Petitioner’s revocation claim is release from custody, not an indefinite bar on deportation.” But it declined to order release at the preliminary-injunction stage: “However, the problem is clear: upon release, the Court loses its authority to address the habeas petition.” It held that her claim that the alleged violation of 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) must be remedied by release “is properly considered in the habeas petition.”

The court said that, as it awaited further briefing on the habeas claim, it “anticipates clarification regarding the different dates on Petitioner’s notice of revocation of her OSUP and whether the planned informal interview occurred on September 18 or, if it did not occur, whether that violation was cured.”