Mr. Orellana Quintanilla received a notice reinstating a prior removal order on 2 October 2015 and was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador on 3 January 2019. Released on an order of supervision on 10 January 2019, he lived and worked in Maryland for more than six years. On 31 July 2025 his supervision was revoked, ICE took him back into custody, and the government told him the same day that it intended to remove him to Mexico. His lawyers asked for a reasonable fear interview by e-mail on 16, 24 and 25 September 2025. The last request attached his signed statement about the MS-13 gang that killed his uncle: “I am afraid they will harm or even kill me.” On the evening of 25 September he asked the court for a temporary restraining order; on the morning of 26 September 2025 ICE officers removed him to Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico, without an interview. It was undisputed that an immigration judge had found it “more likely than not that the Plaintiff would be persecuted or tortured if he is returned to his home country of El Salvador.” The court held that he was likely to succeed on his claim that the government violated the reasonable fear regulations and DHS policy: “The Plaintiff’s removal under these circumstances is plainly in violation of DHS’s RFI regulations.” It did “not agree with the Defendants that Congress intended for a third country removal to fall outside the scope of these regulations,” and read them to apply “whenever a person asserts a fear of being sent to the country to which the Defendants seek removal, regardless of whether that country is the person’s country of origin.” The court denied the motion to dismiss, rejecting the government’s arguments under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), on venue, and based on the pending D.V.D. class action, noting that “no final judgment has been entered by the district court in that class action litigation.” It found irreparable harm because he is in hiding in Mexico and fears being sent on to El Salvador. Relying on Noem v. Abrego Garcia, it held that it may order the government to facilitate his return “as a remedy for the unlawful removal at issue in this case.”
Caution Interim relief only: a preliminary injunction granted in part. The opinion is dated and filed 27 May 2026 but explains an order the court issued on 19 May 2026, after a hearing that day, and incorporates reasons “stated during the May 19, 2026, hearing,” which are not in the file. The opinion does not say which part of the motion was refused; a request for parole documents was withdrawn at the hearing. That he is in hiding in Mexico and that ICE kept his passport and other identity documents are recorded as his allegations. The docket shows further proceedings in August 2026, including a hearing set for 11 August 2026, which have not been reviewed; whether he has been returned is not stated in this opinion.
Third-country removal Reasonable fear Withholding of removal Revocation of supervision Compliance with regulations Jurisdiction 1252(g) D.V.D. class action Venue Remedy
The court's own text
Public copy Copy held by the Coalition
Read in full from the text of the memorandum opinion.
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.