Ceesay v. Bondi
1:25-cv-03716
S.D.N.Y.May 19, 2025Background
- Sering Ceesay, a citizen of The Gambia, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1994, was ordered removed in 1997 after failing to voluntarily depart, and has remained in the U.S. since then.
- Ceesay was detained by ICE in February 2025, with removal scheduled for May 2025.
- He filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings in March 2025, citing potential economic and health-related persecution if returned to The Gambia.
- The immigration court denied his motion to reopen; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) later denied his request for a stay of removal.
- Ceesay filed an action in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent his removal until his mandamus complaint is resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to issue TRO | Court can issue TRO to preserve the status quo | Statutes strip district court jurisdiction | District court lacks jurisdiction over request |
| Nature of requested relief | Relief is not a stay of removal, just status quo | TRO is an indirect challenge to removal order | Relief sought is an indirect challenge—barred |
| Likelihood of success on merits | BIA delays are unreasonable and justify mandamus | BIA denied the stay; appeal is still pending | No likelihood of success on the merits |
| Mandamus relief availability | Court should compel BIA to rule on the motion quickly | BIA acting within reasonable time; no clear duty | Mandamus not warranted; no unreasonable delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2011) (statutory bar on district court review applies to both direct and indirect challenges to removal orders)
- Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011) (deportees may continue appeals from abroad under IIRIRA)
- Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010) (IIRIRA designed to expedite removals while preserving appeal rights)