S.J.T. v. Nelson

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06205
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 S.J.T., et al., Case No. 25-cv-06205-LB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 13 v. AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

14 JULIE NELSON, et al., Re: ECF No. 5 15 Defendants. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiffs S.J.T. and Z.C.H. are noncitizens in removal proceedings who applied for cancellation 19 of removal before an immigration judge, claiming that removal would result in exceptional and 20 extremely unusual hardship to their disabled U.S.-citizen daughter, J.C.J. They moved for a 21 temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction directing the Executive Office for 22 Immigration Review (EOIR) to schedule a merits hearing and adjudicate the plaintiffs’ cancellation- 23 of-removal application before August 14, 2025, the date that their daughter turns twenty-one, 24 ending her parents’ eligibility to gain lawful permanent residence. After the plaintiffs filed the 25 motion, EOIR set a hearing for August 6, 2025. That moots the request for a hearing. The court 26 lacks jurisdiction to order adjudication of the plaintiffs’ application by a specific date. 27 1 STATEMENT 2 The plaintiffs are S.J.T. and Z.C.H., wife and husband and citizens of Mexico, and their 3 disabled U.S. citizen daughter, J.C.J., who turns twenty-one on August 14, 2025. In September 4 2023, S.J.T. applied for asylum based on her trauma from severe childhood abuse by her father in 5 Mexico and her daughter’s disability. Z.C.H. is a derivative applicant.1 6 On October 19, 2024, the plaintiffs requested an expedited interview for their application. The 7 Asylum Office denied the request, informing them how to be placed on the short-notice list for 8 interviews.2 On December 19, 2024, the plaintiffs requested placement on the short-notice list, 9 which allowed the Asylum Office to contact them if a cancellation arose. The Office added them 10 to the list on December 20, 2024.3 Non-expedited interviews often take several years to schedule.4 11 On December 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a district-court lawsuit to compel the Asylum Office to 12 schedule an interview.5 On April 2, 2025, the plaintiffs waived their right to an interview, 13 allowing U.S. Customs and Immigration Services to issue a notice to appear on June 30 for 14 removal proceedings.6 On May 30, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their cancellation-of-removal 15 applications and requested an urgent Individual Calendar hearing, citing J.C.J.’s upcoming twenty- 16 first birthday. The hearing was scheduled for July 7, 2025.7 17 18 19 1 Nightingale Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 2 (¶¶ 2–5), 3 (¶ 10); I-797 Receipt for I-589 Appl., Ex. A to id. – 20 ECF No. 1-2. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 21 2 Nightingale Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 2 (¶ 6); Req., Ex. B to id. – ECF No. 1-3; Letter, Ex. C to id. – 22 ECF No. 1-4. 3 Nightingale Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 2–3 (¶¶ 7–8); Eligibility Checklist, Ex. D to id. – ECF No. 1-5. 23 4 Nightingale Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 3 (¶ 9). 24 5 Id. (¶ 10); Compl., S.J.T. v. Lehman, No. 3:24-cv-09366-LB – ECF No. 1. The parties stipulated to extend the deadline for the government to file its summary-judgment motion to May 9, 2025, because 25 they were negotiating a resolution of the case. Stipulation and Order, No. 3:24-cv-09366-LB – ECF No. 19. No motion has been filed. The court asked the parties in the low-numbered case to file a 26 stipulation by August 7 with their next steps. Min. Entry – ECF No. 20. 27 6 Nightingale Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 3 (¶ 10); Waiver, Ex. E to id. – ECF No. 1-6; Notice to Appear, Ex. F to id. – ECF No. 1-7. 1 At the July 7 hearing, the plaintiffs requested expedited adjudication of their cancellation-of- 2 removal claim due to J.C.J.’s upcoming birthday. The immigration judge stated that the court 3 could no longer expedite adjudication because the prior practice of expediting due to loss of 4 eligibility had been discontinued.8 Witnesses testified, and the immigration judge scheduled a 5 further hearing for August 11, 2025, to complete the testimony, considering J.C.J.’s birthday.9 On 6 July 16, 2025, the hearing was rescheduled to October 2, 2025, before a different immigration 7 judge because the previous judge was terminated.10 On July 17, 2025, the plaintiffs moved to 8 advance the hearing date.11 On July 23, 2025, they filed this lawsuit and motion.12 On July 24, 9 2025, EOIR reset the hearing to August 6, 2025.13 10 The parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).14 The court 11 held a hearing on August 4, 2025. 12 LEGAL STANDARD 13 1. Cancellation of Removal 14 The Attorney General may cancel removal and adjust the status of an inadmissible or 15 deportable alien if the alien (1) has been physically present in the U.S. for a continuous period of 16 ten years preceding the application, (2) has been a person of good moral character during this 17 period, (3) has not been convicted of certain offenses, and (4) establishes that removal would 18 result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative (parent, spouse, or 19 child). 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). A child must be under age twenty-one to qualify. Id. § 1101(b)(1). 20 There is an annual cap of 4,000 aliens per year, with limited exceptions. Id. § 1229b(e)(1); Gomez 21 v. McAleenan, No. 19-cv-04199-JCS, 2019 WL 5722619, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019). EOIR’s 22 23 8 Nightingale Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 3 (¶ 12). 24 9 Id. at 3–4 (¶ 13); Notice of In-Person Hr’g, Ex. I to id. – ECF 1-10. 25 10 Nightingale Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 4 (¶ 14); Notice of In-Person Hr’g, Ex. J to id. – ECF 1-11. 26 11 Nightingale Decl. – ECF No. 1-1 at 4 (¶ 15). 12 Compl. – ECF No. 1; Mot. – ECF No. 5. 27 13 Notice of In-Person Hr’g – ECF No. 18-1. 1 Office of the Chief Immigration Judge adopted regulations implementing the cap. When the cap is 2 reached, grants are reserved until a grant becomes available in a subsequent fiscal year. 8 C.F.R. 3 § 1240.21(c)(1). Immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals cannot issue 4 conditional grants. Id. § 1240.21(a)(2). The availability of relief is determined by the date the 5 order granting relief becomes final. Id. § 1240.21(c). Thus, a queue exists for the 4,000 annual 6 grants. Gomez, 2019 WL 5722619, at *2. 7 8 2. Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions 9 The standards for a TRO and a preliminary injunction are identical. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. 10 John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Movants must demonstrate (1) a 11 likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent an injunction, (3) the 12 balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat’l 13 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The irreparable injury must be likely and immediate. 14 Id. at 20–22. Alternatively, movants may show “serious questions going to the merits” and a 15 balance of hardships that tips sharply in their favor, provided that the other elements are satisfied. 16 All. for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011). When the government is a 17 party, the balance of equities and public interest merge. California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th 18 Cir. 2018). A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo and parties’ rights until final 19 judgment. U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). For a 20 mandatory injunction, the movants must show that the law and facts clearly favor their position, not 21 simply that they are likely to succeed.15 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). 22 23 ANALYSIS 24 The plaintiffs seek an expedited hearing and adjudication of their cancellation-of-removal 25 claim before J.C.J.’s twenty-first birthday.16 They have not demonstrated a likelihood of success 26

27 15 Mot. – ECF No. 5 at 11–12 (citing the legal standard for mandatory injunctions). 1 on the merits. EOIR’s scheduling of a hearing on August 6, 2025, moots the request for a hearing. 2 The court lacks jurisdiction to order adjudication by a specific date. 3 The court cannot hear moot claims. Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086–87 (9th 4 Cir. 2011). With J.C.J.’s birthday on August 14, 2025, and a hearing now set for August 6, 2025, 5 the request for a hearing before August 14 is moot. 6 The plaintiffs argue that a hearing does not guarantee adjudication before J.C.J.’s birthday, as a 7 grant cannot be issued immediately, only an intent to grant. The first immigration judge, now 8 terminated, stated that the previous practice of expediting grants no longer exists. Thus, their case 9 might not be adjudicated before August 14, 2025, potentially causing them to lose eligibility for 10 lawful permanent residence.17 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1) (child must be under twenty-one). This court 11 lacks jurisdiction to compel adjudication by that date. 12 Relief depends on presenting a complete cancellation-of-removal application by August 6, 13 2025. If presented, the immigration judge determines whether removal would cause “exceptional 14 and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). When the 4,000 15 cap is reached, further grants are deferred until they are available in a subsequent fiscal year. 16 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21(c)(1); Gomez, 2019 WL 5722619, at *2. Previously, immigration judges could 17 issue earlier decisions for humanitarian reasons.18 The plaintiffs claim that immigration officials 18 reserve 500 of the 4,000 grants for successful applicants in custody.19 19 Judicial review of all questions of law and fact in removal proceedings, including 20 constitutional and statutory interpretation, is available only through a petition for judicial review 21 of a final order in the court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9); Reno v. American-Arab Anti- 22 Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483 (1999); Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 623 (9th 23 Cir. 2012); Gomez, 2019 WL 5722619, at *3. District courts lack jurisdiction to review final 24 removal orders; only courts of appeal have authority. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 25

26 17 Reply – ECF No. 21 at 2–4. 27 18 Mot. – ECF No. 5 at 14 (citing Procedures Due to the Cap on Non-LPR Cancellation, AILA Doc. No. 18082137, obtained through a FOIA request). 1 837 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2016). Sections 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) channel review of all claims 2 “arising from” removal proceedings, including policy-and-practices challenges, through the 3 petition-for-review process. J.E.F.M., 837 F.3d at 1035; Gomez, 2019 WL 5722619, at *3. Claims 4 independent of or collateral to removal proceedings may be considered by district courts. 5 J.E.F.M., 837 F.3d at 1032, 1035; Gomez, 2019 WL 5722619, at *4. 6 The distinction between claims arising from removal proceedings and independent claims 7 turns on the relief sought. Martinez, 704 F.3d at 622–23 (9th Cir. 2012). In J.E.F.M., the Ninth 8 Circuit held that claims about the right to counsel in removal proceedings were subject to the 9 petition-for-review process, not district-court review. 837 F.3d at 1029, 1035. In Martinez, the 10 plaintiff’s APA challenge to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of 11 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture was an impermissible attempt to review 12 the removal order. 704 F.3d at 621–22. Claims “inextricably linked” to the removal order are 13 reviewable only through a petition to the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 623. 14 The plaintiffs seek adjudication of their cancellation-of-removal application and, if approved, 15 an expedited grant before J.C.J.’s birthday to preserve their eligibility. They frame this as a return 16 to the prior practice of full adjudication.20 This challenge implicates the 4,000-grant cap and 17 “arises from” the removal proceedings. Gomez, 2019 WL 5722619 at *1, *3–4. In Gomez, the 18 plaintiff sought cancellation of removal due to hardship to her son and was placed in the queue 19 after the cap was reached. Id. at *1. Her federal lawsuit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as 20 the challenge to agency procedures was inextricably linked to the removal order. Id. at *1, *4 21 (rejecting argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 did not govern because a removal order had not been 22 issued). Similarly, the plaintiffs’ requested relief is inextricably linked to their removal 23 proceedings. Id.; cf. Mendez-Garcia v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 655, 666–69 (9th Cir. 2016) (no due- 24 process violation from routine processing delays or statutory cap when children aged out during 25 the proceedings). The court lacks jurisdiction to compel adjudication by August 14, 2025. 26 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 The petitioner’s request for a hearing is moot. The court lacks jurisdiction to provide further 3 || relief and denies the motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. EC 6 Dated: August 4, 2025 Lit LAUREL BEELER 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28