Siguencia-Romero v. Joyce

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
• Docket Number: 25 Civ. 8975 (JPC)
• Decision Date: 05 November 2025
• Citation: Siguencia-Romero v. Joyce, 25 Civ. 8975 (JPC) (S.D. N.Y. Nov 05, 2025)
• Parties: EMMA CECILIA SIGUENCIA-ROMERO, et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM JOYCE, et al., Respondents.
• Writing for the Court: JOHN P. CRONAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
• topic: Civil Rights,Administrative Law

1

EMMA CECILIA SIGUENCIA-ROMERO, et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM JOYCE, et al., Respondents.

No. 25 Civ. 8975 (JPC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

November 5, 2025

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Petitioners a mother and her two children, move the Court for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)^[1] that would, among other things, require their immediate release from the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and restrain Respondents from removing them from the United States. For the reasons explained below, Petitioners' motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon a showing that Petitioners will suffer irreparable injury from their continued detention.

I. Background^[2]

Petitioner Emma Siguencia-Romero (“Emma”) and her children Petitioners Evelyn Saeteros Siguencia (“Evelyn”) and E.S.S., are citizens of Ecuador who fled that country and entered the United States in July 2021. Amended Petition ¶¶ 1, 19, 21. After being apprehended and detained at the border, Petitioners were released and allowed to travel to New York City. Id. ¶ 21. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) issued an order of removal for Petitioners on January 23, 2023, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ's order on September 29, 2023, at which point the order of removal became final. Id. ¶ 23; see id. ¶ 2 (“Petitioners received a final order of removal on September 29, 2023.”). Emma filed a currently pending motion to reopen her case with the BIA on June 26, 2025. Id. ¶ 26.

ICE detained Petitioners following an in-person hearing at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City on October 29, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 1, 4, 7. According to Petitioners, Respondents “made no allegation that changed circumstances warranted a revocation of [Petitioners'] release, and refused to consider evidence provided by [Petitioners'] attorney [which] indicat[ed] that Petitioners were in the process of applying for humanitarian immigration relief,” namely a U visa for Emma and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”) for Evelyn and E.S.S. Id. ¶ 4; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.14 (regulations governing U visas); 8 C.F.R. § 204.111(b)(3) (regulations governing SIJS). In fact, “ICE offered no additional reasons [for Petitioners' detention] other than that [P]etitioners had been ordered removed.” Amended Petition ¶ 28. Later that same day, Petitioners filed a Verified Petition for Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“Initial Petition”) in this District, Dkt. 1, and ICE subsequently transferred Petitioners to Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas, Amended Petition ¶¶ 1, 7. See id. ¶ 11 (“Petitioners are currently detained at the Dilley Detention Center but were in ICE custody at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York at the time this Petition was initially filed on October 29, 2025.”). Emma is currently “detained together with [E.S.S.] but has been separated from . . . Evelyn, who is detained elsewhere at the Dilley Detention Center.” Id. ¶ 7.

On October 30, 2025, the Court ordered Respondents to respond to the Initial Petition no later than November 7, 2025. Dkt. 2. Then yesterday, November 4, 2025, at a little after 2:00 p.m., Petitioners filed their Amended Petition, Dkt. 10, and, a little after 4:00 p.m. that day, Petitioners moved for a TRO, Dkt. 12-1 (“Motion”).

The Amended Petition pleads seven causes of action against Respondents. First, Petitioners allege that “[b]ecause Respondents had no legitimate, non-punitive objective in revoking Petitioner's release, Petitioners' detention violates substantive due process” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Amended Petition ¶ 71. Second, Petitioners allege that their detention without “notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond violated procedural due process” under the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶ 73. Third, Petitioners allege that their detention is “not in accordance with the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and implementing regulations governing orders of supervision.” Id. ¶ 83. In particular, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) provides that aliens such as Petitioners, who are not removed within the ninety-day removal period specified under Section 1231(a)(1), “shall be subject to supervision under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). Petitioners maintain that Respondents violated this provision “by not placing Petitioner[s] on a proper Order of Supervision, which could only be revoked by the ICE Executive Associate Director.” Amended Petition ¶ 85.

Fourth, Petitioners allege that their detention is arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), because Respondents failed to consider (1) “the serious constitutional concerns raised by revoking Petitioners' release without notice and an opportunity to respond”; (2) “the increased administrative burden to the agency caused by revoking the order of release of Petitioners”; (3) “reasonable alternatives to revoking Petitioners' order of release”; and (4) “Petitioners' substantial reliance interest” in ICE's alleged representation that the agency “would not detain or deport petitioners while a motion remained pending before the BIA.” Amended Petition ¶¶ 96-99. Petitioners also contend that, because Emma is eligible to apply for a U visa, and Evelyn and E.S.S. are seeking SIJS, their detention is arbitrary and capricious in that it contradicts ICE Directive 11005.3, which provides that “absent exceptional circumstances, ICE will refrain from taking civil immigration enforcement action against known beneficiaries of victim-based immigration benefits and those known to have a pending application for such benefits.”^[3] Id. ¶¶ 103-108.

Fifth, Petitioners allege that their re-detention exceeded Respondents' statutory authority because “8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) only authorizes detention past the 90-day removal period for a person who is found to be a danger to the community, unlikely to comply with a removal order, or whose removal order is on certain grounds specified in the statute.”^[4] Id. ¶ 112. Sixth, Respondents allege that their re-detention is unlawful because “[t]here is no statute, constitutional provision, or other source of law that authorizes Respondents to detain Petitioner[s].” Id. ¶ 114. Seventh and finally, Petitioners allege that under the Supreme Court's decision in United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), Respondents' revocation of Petitioners' order of release “should be set aside for violating agency procedures, rules, or instructions,” Amended Petition ¶¶ 118-19.

Petitioners' motion for a TRO seeks an order restraining Respondents “from removing Petitioners from the United States” and from “detaining the Petitioners for the purposes of civil immigration detention” “[p]ending consideration” of the case. Proposed TRO at 1-2. Petitioners also ask this Court to require Respondents to “transfer Petitioners back to this Court's jurisdiction,” “reunify [Emma] with her daughter, Evelyn,” and “produce the Petitioners to appear virtually for [a] SIJS hearing before the Queens County Family Court on November 10, 2025.” Id. at 2.^[5]

Petitioners argue that absent such relief, they will suffer immediate and irreparable harm for three reasons. First, Petitioners argue that “[t]he deprivation of [their] constitutional rights permit a per se finding of irreparable harm.” Motion at 16. Second, Petitioners represent that “on November 4, 2025, the ICE deportation officer Ivan Gonzalez informed Counsel that ICE plans to remove Petitioners to Ecuador on November 6, 2025 at 2:30 AM.” Id. at 17; accord Proposed TRO at 1. Finally, Petitioners argue that their “current detention is further interfering with their statutory rights and causing irreparable harm as it impedes [their] ability to complete and file their applications for the U visa and SIJS.” Motion at 17.

Yesterday evening, just over four hours after receiving Petitioners' motion for a TRO, the Court ordered Respondents to respond to Petitioners' requests for injunctive relief no later than 12:00 p.m. today, November 5, 2025. Dkt. 13. Respondents duly filed a letter response by that deadline, arguing that the Court should deny injunctive relief “because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant Petitioners a stay of removal pursuant to the jurisdiction-limiting provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA'), specifically, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g).” Dkt. 14 (Response Letter) at 1. Less than three hours later, Petitioners filed a letter reply, arguing, inter alia, that Respondents' jurisdictional arguments were “premised on a mischaracterization of the relief sought by Petitioners.” Dkt. 15 (“Reply Letter”) at 1.

II. Legal Standard

Parties seeking emergency relief generally must “show (a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.” Citigroup Glob Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). But when plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction or TRO “that will affect government action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme, . . . [they] must establish a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Sussman v. Crawford, 488 F.3d 136, 140 (2d Cir. 2007). Relevant here, the INA also provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section...