Court
D. Minn.
Decided
October 30, 2026
Docket
0:26-cv-04507-JMB-DTS (ECF No. 30)
Judge
Jeffrey M. Bryan, District Judge.
Outcome
Interim relief granted
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.
Nationality
Citizen of Nicaragua. Entered the United States on 30 October 2022 and turned himself in; DHS reinstated a removal order of 2005. In August 2024 an immigration judge ordered him removed but granted withholding of removal “pursuant to the protections of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibit Lopez’s deportation to Nicaragua”; neither side appealed. Released on an order of supervision and complied with all its conditions; arrested in Minnesota on 15 January 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.
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.
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.
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
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