Court
D.N.M.
Decided
July 28, 2026
Docket
2:26-cv-00601-SMD-LF (ECF No. 16)
Judge
Sarah M. Davenport, District Judge.
Outcome
Relief granted in part
Disposition
Temporary restraining order partially granted; stay of transfer reinstated. Respondents to ensure that the petitioner’s fear-based claims regarding removal to Equatorial Guinea “are evaluated by a neutral decision-maker, in accordance with the requirements of due process”, and to file a status report within 14 days of his fear-based interview or screening; respondents “temporarily enjoined from removing Petitioner to a third country, absent this Court’s order to the contrary.”
Nationality
Native of Cameroon, detained since about 2 December 2024. On 25 March 2025 an immigration judge found him removable but granted withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture regarding Cameroon. In custody for 17 months when the order issued.
Third country
Equatorial Guinea, by charter flight.
A day after lifting its stay of transfer, the court reinstated it. His counsel told the court that “ICE has not served Petitioner or counsel with any written notice designating Equatorial Guinea as a country of removal”. The court said it “does not purport to review the substance of the immigration judge’s ruling or to stay the execution of the final removal order”, but held that removal proceedings must still be conducted within the bounds of due process: “Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, noncitizens are entitled to reasonable notice of the country of removal and a meaningful chance to state their fear-based claims regarding that new country.”
It rejected the respondents’ concern about the timing of removal flights: “Respondents had ample time within that timeline to properly notify Petitioner and his counsel, as well as evaluate any fear-based claims regarding Equatorial Guinea. It is not this Court’s injunction that hinders Petitioner’s removal. If Respondents had properly evaluated Petitioner’s fear-based claims, and if the record had demonstrated proper notice and screening, the Court would not have reinstated the stay of removal.”
Caution
A temporary restraining order. No later order in the case was read, and whether a fear screening took place is not known. The order cites D.V.D. v. DHS, 821 F. Supp. 3d 102 (D. Mass. 2026), and was issued before the Supreme Court’s stay of 29 September 2026 in that case. The order of 27 July 2026 lifting the stay is recorded separately in this register.
Third-country removal
Notice
Due process
Fear screening
Temporary restraining order
Stay of transfer
Withholding of removal
CAT protection
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