USCA11 Case: 20-12487 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 1 of 19 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-12487 ____________________ ESTELA MABEL ARGUETA ROMERO, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, MIAMI FIELD OFFICE, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondents-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 20-12487 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 2 of 19 2 Opinion of the Court 20-12487 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-00053-PGB-GJK ____________________ Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and BURKE,∗ District Judge. NEWSOM, Circuit Judge: In 1995, Estela Mabel Argueta Romero, an illegal alien, vol- untarily left the United States just before an immigration court for- mally ordered her removed. 1 Years later, she reentered the coun- try—again illegally. When she applied for a stay of deportation, the government enrolled her in a supervision program and, even- tually, sought to remove her pursuant to the 1995 order. Romero filed a petition for habeas corpus relief. She argued that she had “self-executed” the 1995 order when she departed the country shortly before its issuance and, accordingly, that the order was no longer operative. The district court denied relief, reasoning that Romero’s pre-order departure didn’t constitute valid self-execution and, therefore, that the 1995 order remained effective. ∗ Honorable Liles C. Burke, United States District Judge for the Northern Dis- trict of Alabama, sitting by designation. 1Throughout this opinion, we use variations of the terms “remove” and “de- port” interchangeably. USCA11 Case: 20-12487 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 3 of 19 20-12487 Opinion of the Court 3 Romero’s appeal presents two issues. First, as a threshold matter, did the conditions of Romero’s supervision program ren- der her “in custody” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241, such that the district court had jurisdiction to consider her habeas peti- tion? Second, on the merits, did Romero validly self-execute the 1995 deportation order when, shortly before it was entered, she voluntarily left the United States? Because we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction under § 2241 and that Romero did not validly self-execute—and thus was not deported under—the 1995 order, we affirm. I Estela Mabel Argueta Romero illegally immigrated from Guatemala to the United States in 1993 and, shortly thereafter, ap- plied for asylum. The federal government denied her application and initiated deportation proceedings. In January 1995, an immi- gration court issued Romero a hearing notice by mail. About a week later—but before the hearing—Romero voluntarily departed the country and returned to Guatemala. Then, in April 1995, the immigration court held a hearing and ordered her deported in ab- sentia. A decade later, Romero again illegally immigrated to the United States and, in 2016, applied for a stay of deportation. The federal government temporarily approved her application and en- rolled her in a supervision program. As part of that program, Romero (1) had to “appear in person . . . upon [the government’s] each and every …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals