UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A.M.P.V., a minor, by and through her next friend Miriam Aguayo, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 20-cv-913 (RDM) v. WILLIAM H. BARR, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff A.M.P.V. is a 16-year-old girl who fled Honduras with her mother after allegedly suffering physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her father. See Dkt. 10-13 (A.M.P.V. Decl.). Upon their arrival at the U.S.-Mexico border in September 2019, Plaintiff and her mother were returned to Mexico under the “Remain in Mexico” program, where they lived in a makeshift camp in Matamoros, Mexico and traveled across the border to the United States only to attend their hearings before an immigration judge. Id.; Dkt. 13-1 at 2 (listing Plaintiff and her mother’s residence as “Matamoros Bridge, Matamoros, Tamaulipas”). Without the assistance of a lawyer, Plaintiff’s mother applied for—and was denied—asylum, withholding of removal under Sections 209 and 241(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter. Dkt. 10-13 at 2–3 (A.M.P.V. Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9). At the conclusion of the last of these hearings, the immigration judge ordered Plaintiff and her mother removed from the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, and, while reserving the right to appeal that decision, they returned to Matamoros. Dkt. 13-2 at 2-3. Concerned about her safety, Plaintiff then returned to the U.S border without her mother and presented herself to the authorities. Dkt. 10-13 at 3 (A.M.P.V. Decl. ¶ 8–9); Dkt. 13-2 at 2. As an unaccompanied minor, she was transferred to a detention center in McAllen, Texas, Dkt. 10-13 at 1 (A.M.P.V. ¶ 1), where she will remain pending her removal, which is currently scheduled for April 24, 2020, Dkt. 19. Plaintiff filed this action, with the assistance of counsel, seeking to enjoin her removal and to compel Defendants to place her into new removal proceedings with all the protections statutorily accorded unaccompanied minors under 8 U.S.C. § 1232. See Dkt. 1. While litigating this case, Plaintiff has also sought administrative relief, moving to reopen her removal proceedings. See Dkt. 10-4. The immigration judge denied that motion, see Dkt. 10-6, and Plaintiff appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), see Dkt. 10-7, where her appeal remains pending. Plaintiff also sought a stay of removal pending consideration of her administrative appeal, and the BIA denied that request. Dkt. 10-10 at 3. Plaintiff now moves for a temporary restraining order to stay her removal until this Court can issue a decision on her pending motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 17. Granting the relief Plaintiff seeks would, she contends, promote the orderly adjudication of a case the implicates the rights and safety of a sixteen-year-old girl. Defendants, however, oppose even a brief stay, and, as explained below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that she is entitled to emergency relief. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals