Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
J.H.C.,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, STEWART DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 4:26-CV-82 (CDL)
O R D E R
Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner’s emergency
motion 	for 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	(ECF 	No. 	2). 	The 	Court
held a hearing on the motion earlier this afternoon at which time
counsel 	for 	Petitioner 	and 	Respondents 	had 	an 	opportunity 	to 	be
heard. 	As 	explained 	during 	the 	hearing 	and 	for 	the 	reasons 	set
forth below, the Court grants the motion to the following limited
extent. 	Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the Stewart
Detention 	Center 	before 	the 	appropriate 	asylum 	officer 	decides
Petitioner’s claim of fear and request for withholding of removal
to Mexico.
According to his petition, Petitioner has been in the United
States since 2014 with his family based upon a previous withholding
of 	removal 	to 	his 	home 	country 	of 	Honduras. 	On 	the 	day 	after
Christmas of 2025, Petitioner was formally notified that he would
be 	removed 	to 	Mexico. 	He 	is 	currently 	detained 	at 	the 	Stewart
Case 4:26-cv-00082-CDL-AGH Document 6 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Detention 	Center. 	Petitioner’s 	counsel 	maintains 	on 	information
and 	belief 	that 	Petitioner 	is 	scheduled 	to 	be 	removed 	to 	Mexico
tomorrow 	before 	he 	has 	an 	opportunity 	to 	fully 	present 	his 	claim
of fear and request for withholding of removal to Mexico.
The 	Court 	finds 	that 	it 	has 	jurisdiction 	to 	decide 	whether
Petitioner’s removal should be temporarily stayed until an asylum
officer 	decides 	his 	claim 	of 	fear 	and 	request 	for 	withholding
removal to Mexico. 	Denial of this opportunity for a hearing would
violate 	the 	applicable 	statute 	and 	raise 	serious 	due 	process
concerns. 	Moreover, 	an 	order 	preserving 	the 	status 	quo 	until 	a
decision 	on 	Petitioner’s 	claim 	is 	made 	by 	the 	appropriate 	asylum
officer 	does 	not 	implicate 	the 	jurisdiction-stripping 	provisions
of the applicable law.
Petitioner 	has 	shown: 	(1) 	a 	substantial 	likelihood 	that 	his
imminent removal without an opportunity to have his claim of fear
and 	request 	for 	withholding 	removal 	heard 	will 	violate 	his
statutory 	and 	constitutional 	due 	process 	rights; 	(2) 	this
deprivation of those rights will result in irreparable harm because
his removal will cause him to forfeit any realistic opportunity to
assert his claim of fear and withholding of removal; (3) the harm
to Respondents caused by this temporary injunctive relief pales in
significance to the harm to Petitioner of not granting the relief;
and 	(4) 	protecting 	Petitioner’s 	constitutional 	and 	statutory
rights 	with 	a 	limited 	remedy 	that 	also 	respects 	the 	Executive
Case 4:26-cv-00082-CDL-AGH Document 6 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Branch’s role in the immigration process is in the public interest.
Accordingly, 	as 	previously 	stated, 	Petitioner 	is 	entitled 	to
preliminary 	injunctive 	relief 	as 	follows: 	Respondents 	shall 	not
remove Petitioner from the Stewart Detention Center until an asylum
officer makes a decision on Petitioner’s claim of fear and request
for withholding of removal to Mexico.1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of January, 2026.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1 At the hearing today, the Court indicated that it believed an asylum officer
should consider any supplementation to Petitioner’s claim by his lawyer after
his lawyer has an opportunity to speak with him on January 22, 2026 and that
the 	Court 	contemplated 	that 	its 	injunctive 	relief 	would 	include 	such 	a
requirement. 	Upon further reflection, the Court finds that such direction to
Respondent’s asylum officer may overstep its jurisdictional bounds. 	Therefore,
it makes no mandate as to what the asylum officer should consider nor does it
place any deadlines on the officer’s decision. The Court does assume, however,
that the processing of Petitioner’s claim will be done in good faith knowing
that Petitioner’s counsel wishes to supplement his claim after she talks to her
client on January 22, 2026. 	The Court knows of no reason why Respondents could
not facilitate the rescheduling of this telephone conference to an earlier date.
Case 4:26-cv-00082-CDL-AGH Document 6 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3