Amado Armando Valdes-Oviedo v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02720
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 AMADO ARMANDO VALDES-OVIEDO, CASE NO. C25-2720-KKE 8

Petitioner(s), TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 9 v.

10 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT FIELD OFFICE 11 DIRECTOR,

12 Respondent(s).

13 Petitioner Amado Armando Valdes-Oviedo is a citizen and national of Cuba who, 14 proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging 15 his immigration detention at the Northwest Immigration Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in 16 Tacoma, Washington. Dkt. No. 3. Valdes-Oviedo now requests a temporary restraining order 17 enjoining Respondents from transferring him from NWIPC while his petition is pending. Dkt. No. 18 9. For the following reasons, and because the motion seeks limited relief solely to maintain the 19 status quo pending the Court’s review and adjudication of the underlying petition, the Court will 20 grant the motion. 21 Valde-Oviedo first entered the United States as a refugee in 1980. Dkt. No. 7-1. On March 22 15, 2006, an immigration judge ordered him removed to Cuba. Dkt. No. 7-4. Valdes-Oviedo was 23 subsequently released on an order of supervised release (“OSUP”) months later. Dkt. No. 7-5. 24 1 Nearly two decades after his initial release, on August 15, 2025, Valdes-Oviedo’s OSUP was 2 revoked and he was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and served with 3 a notice of arrest and custody determination. See Dkt. Nos. 7-8, 7-9. Respondents claim that his

4 OSUP was revoked because ICE determined “there is now a significant likelihood that Petitioner 5 can be removed from the United States in the foreseeable future.” Dkt. No. 6. On his notice of 6 custody determination form, Valdes-Oviedo marked a box that states “I do request an immigration 7 judge review of this custody determination.” Dkt. No. 7-9 (emphasis in original). About four 8 months later, ICE served Valdes-Oviedo with a notification indicating that it intended to remove 9 him to a third-country—i.e., a country other than Cuba, which was listed on his removal order. 10 Dtk. No. 7-10. In particular, the notice indicated that ICE intended to remove Valdes-Oviedo to 11 Mexico. Id. 12 Valdes-Oviedo claims that his detention is unlawful on several grounds, including that (a)

13 his removal is not “reasonably foreseeable” and that he is being indefinitely detained in violation 14 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, see Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001), and (b) 15 that his re-detention violated due process because he was not afforded notice and an opportunity 16 to be heard with respect to the reasons ICE had for revoking his OSUP. See Dkt. No. 3. 17 Respondents argue, among other things, that, although Valdes-Oviedo has been detained longer 18 than the presumptively reasonable six-month period under Zadvydas, he has not presented 19 evidence refuting that his removal to Mexico is reasonably foreseeable. Dkt. No. 6 at 7–9. They 20 also claim that Valdes-Oviedo cannot obtain habeas relief because he has not exhausted his 21 administrative remedies. Id. at 10. In particular, Respondents argue that Valdes-Oviedo does not 22 allege “he has sought a bond hearing, or been denied bond, or that any bond hearing he had was

23 deficient.” Id. 24 1 The Court may grant a TRO to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and to maintain the status 2 quo. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 3 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over

4 the matter.”). The Court finds that Valdes-Oviedo has presented serious issues going to the merits 5 of his claims, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if he is transferred from NWIPC before 6 his petition is resolved, and that the balance of equities and public interest weigh in favor of 7 granting temporary relief. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). 8 To begin, while Respondents contend Valdes-Oviedo’s removal is reasonably foreseeable, 9 the record does not support that contention. Indeed, the declaration of Deportation Officer Enrique 10 Rodriguez that Respondents submitted simply asserts that “Mexico has been accepting Cuban 11 citizens, and ICE believes there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 12 future that Petitioner will be accepted.” Dkt. No. 8 ¶ 14. To the extent the subsequent text in

13 Rodriguez’s declaration provides individualized reasons why Valdes-Oviedo is likely to be 14 removed to Mexico in the foreseeable future, the text is redacted, and respondents have not filed 15 an unredacted version. Id. 16 Moreover, Respondents assert that Valdes-Oviedo has not pursued administrative 17 remedies. But they fail to address that he indicated on his notice of custody determination form 18 that he was requesting review by an immigration judge. See Dkt. No. 7-9. Apparently, no such 19 review was provided. 20 Finally, Respondents concede in a footnote that they do not know if Valdes-Oviedo was 21 given an interview, as required by the applicable regulations, in which he could have presented 22 evidence to refute the reasons for his re-detention—i.e., the reasonable foreseeability of his

23 removal. See Dkt. No. 6 at 7 n.2; 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). It is also unclear whether Valdes- 24 Oviedo was ever asked if he was afraid of being removed to Mexico, notified of his right to apply 1 for fear-based protections, or provided an interview in which he could have articulated a reasonable 2 fear of removal to Mexico. See Kumar v. Wamsley, No. C25-2055-KKE, 2025 WL 3204724, at 3 *5–6 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2025).

4 Valdes-Oviedo has also shown that transfer from NWIPC would cause irreparable harm. 5 His motion indicates that transfer would disrupt his ongoing treatment for diabetes, hypertension, 6 and cardiac issues, as well as his family and community ties in Washington, where he has multiple 7 U.S. citizen family members currently residing. Dkt. No. 9 at 2–3. 8 The final two Winter factors, which involve balancing the equities and considering the 9 public interest, merge when the Government is a party to a case. Padilla v. Immigr. & Customs 10 Enf’t, 953 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). These factors also favor Valdes- 11 Oviedo because “there is a public interest in preventing [noncitizens] from being wrongfully 12 removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.” Nken v. Holder,

13 556 U.S. 418, 436 (2009). 14 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 15 (1) Valdes-Ovidea’s motion for a TRO, Dkt. No. 9, is GRANTED. 16 (2) Respondents ARE PROHIBITED from removing Petitioner from the United States or 17 this jurisdiction—i.e., the Western District of Washington—without further order of 18 this Court. 19 (3) This Order expires February 12, 2026, unless extended by this Court. 20 Dated this 29th day of January, 2026. 21 A 22 Kymberly K. Evanson 23 United S tates District Judge