CRUZ-GONZALEZ v. JOHNSON
5:16-cv-05727
E.D. Pa.Aug 7, 2017Background
- Priscila Cruz-Gonzalez and her minor daughter fled El Salvador in 2016, were detained by ICE, and placed in expedited removal proceedings after asylum officers found no credible fear.
- While detained, Cruz-Gonzalez obtained New York family-court orders and filed an I-360 petition; USCIS later granted Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status on February 28, 2017.
- The Government sought to execute expedited removal; the district court previously enjoined removal pending SIJ adjudication but the Government moved to resume removal after SIJ approval.
- Cruz-Gonzalez sought habeas relief and a preliminary injunction to prevent expedited removal, or alternatively to convert proceedings to standard removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, and claimed Flores-Decree violations from continued detention.
- The court denied relief, holding it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review final expedited removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) and applying Third Circuit precedent restricting review even after SIJ designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders | Cruz‑Gonzalez argued courts can review her removal after SIJ status was granted | Defendants argued §1252(e) limits judicial review of §1225(b)(1) expedited removal orders to narrow habeas categories | Court: No jurisdiction to grant equitable relief; §1252(e) bars review except as specified, following Castro line of authority |
| Whether SIJ status (and being “deemed paroled”) precludes expedited removal/admissibility findings | Cruz‑Gonzalez claimed SIJ designation makes her "paroled" for §1255(a) purposes and thus exempt from §1225(b)(1) expedited removal | Government argued SIJ ‘‘deemed parole’’ is a limited legal fiction for adjustment only and does not erase inadmissibility or a removal order | Court: SIJ designation alone does not change the expedited removal analysis; being "deemed paroled" for adjustment is not actual parole and does not bar removal |
| Whether irreparable harm supports a preliminary injunction (including Flores claims) | Cruz‑Gonzalez argued deportation would cause grave danger from MS‑13 and Flores violations inflict irreparable harm | Government conceded credible fear was previously denied and opposed injunctive relief; disputed Flores-based relief | Court: Found likely irreparable harm from deportation but that element alone cannot overcome lack of likelihood of success on the merits |
| Whether public interest and equities favor injunctive relief | Cruz‑Gonzalez emphasized risk to mother and child if returned | Government emphasized sovereign interest in efficient immigration enforcement and public interest in prompt removal | Court: Public interest and government equities weigh against relief; efficient enforcement outweighs petitioner’s claims given jurisdictional limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016) (limits third‑circuit review of expedited removal and holds jurisdiction is narrow under §1252(e))
- Garcia v. Holder, 659 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses SIJ status and that SIJ approval does not itself confer immigration status or guarantee adjustment)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes four‑factor preliminary injunction standard and that irreparable harm alone is insufficient)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (addresses stay of removal factors and explains public‑interest weight in immigration contexts)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) (recognizes strong sovereign interest in controlling admission and removal of noncitizens)