The petitioner, a native and citizen of Romania and a member of the Roma ethnic group, has lived in the United States under a grant of withholding of removal made in 2017 because of his fear of persecution based on his ethnicity. The court recorded his allegations that on 10 September 2026 ICE officers called him “under the guise of verifying information about an appointment he had with the agency.” Agents then entered his home and arrested him, allegedly without a warrant, and told him verbally that they intended to deport him to the Republic of Rwanda. He alleged that he “has no ties to Rwanda and fears persecution on account of his Roma ethnicity.” He is held at the St. Clair County Jail near Port Huron, Michigan.
The court treated his motion to enforce judgment, based on the First Circuit’s decision in D.V.D. of 18 September 2026, as a second request for injunctive relief, and denied both. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to stay his final order of removal and, following the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Hamama v. Adducci (2018), that it also lacked jurisdiction to order notice and an opportunity to seek withholding of removal or protection under the Convention before removal to a third country: “Hamama still controls the instant case: Procedural challenges to a final order of removal are challenges to the Attorney General’s decision to execute orders of removal and such challenges are within the scope of the jurisdictional bar of § 1252(g).”
The court acknowledged that district courts in the Sixth Circuit were divided. It set out Dia v. Raycraft (W.D. Mich. 27 May 2026), which had found jurisdiction over a challenge to removal to Ghana, and preferred Ojukwu v. Lynch (N.D. Ohio 26 September 2026), which had not. It said that Dia’s distinction of Hamama “rests on an irrelevant factual distinction.”
In a footnote it added: “To be sure, Rascol is entitled to certain processes before being removed to a third country.” It went on: “And it is far from clear that the Government properly followed the applicable law here, or that DHS’s recent guidance is lawful.” It said that a different court, the Sixth Circuit, “may be able to afford Rascol the procedural relief he sought.”
The petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim, which did not challenge his removal, was left to proceed, and the government was ordered to respond to it within twenty-one days.