Yeison Ortiz v. Kristi Noem
23-1468
| 4th Cir. | May 14, 2025Background
- Yeison Leon Ortiz, a non-citizen, was ordered removed from the United States in 2015 after failing to appear at an immigration hearing.
- In 2020, as his deportation was pending, Ortiz's counsel filed for an emergency stay and a motion to reopen, with an immigration judge granting the stay minutes before Ortiz's flight departed.
- Due to paperwork delays (non-electronic filing), neither Ortiz nor the government was aware of the granted stay until days after his removal to Honduras.
- From abroad, Ortiz challenged his removal, arguing the applicable stay-of-removal regulations violated the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The district court dismissed his suit for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), stating Ortiz did not plausibly allege that any regulation affected his removal.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed but on the grounds that Ortiz lacked Article III standing, as he failed to allege that any challenged regulation caused his injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had jurisdiction over the case | District court incorrectly found lack of jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). | Affirmed dismissal, but for lack of standing. |
| Violation of Due Process/APA in stay regs | Stay regs are outdated, enabled wrongful removal. | No causal link between regs and Ortiz’s removal. | Ortiz failed to show challenged regs caused harm. |
| Traceability of harm to regulations | Harm was caused by lack of electronic filing, not regs. | Plaintiff’s injuries not traceable to regs. | No injury traceable to challenged regs. |
| Redressability/Relief for alleged injury | Updating regs/procedures would avert future harm. | Any change wouldn't have prevented removal here. | No redressability as alleged changes insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (on the requirement that a party invoke federal jurisdiction and establish standing)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (outlining three elements of Article III standing: injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (federal courts must have subject-matter jurisdiction before ruling on merits)
- Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238 (1937) (appellate courts may affirm on any correct grounds apparent from the record)