Hubert Montoya

"On December 2, 1783, then-Commander-in-Chief George Washington penned: “America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions.”1 More than two centuries later, Congress reaffirmed President Washington’s vision by establishing the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a (TPS statute). It provides humanitarian relief to foreign nationals in the United States who come from disaster-stricken countries. It also brings in substantial revenue, with TPS holders generating $5.2 billion in taxes annually. See Part VI. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take. [screenshot of tweet].

So says the official responsible for overseeing the TPS program. And one of those (her word) “damn” countries is Haiti. Relevant here, three days before making the above post, Secretary Noem announced she would terminate Haiti’s TPS designation as of February 3, 2026. See 90 Fed. Reg. 54733 (Nov. 28, 2025) (Termination). Plaintiffs are five Haitian TPS holders. They are not, it emerges, “killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.” They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease, Dkt. 90 (Second Am. Compl. (SAC)) ¶ 1; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank, id. ¶ 2; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department, id. ¶ 3; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major, id. ¶ 4; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse, id. ¶ 5. They claim that Secretary Noem’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Government counters that the Court does not have jurisdiction, and, in any case, the Secretary did not violate the law. Plaintiffs seek to stay the Secretary’s decision under 5 U.S.C. § 705 pending the outcome of this litigation. See Dkt. 81 (§ 705 Mot.). To decide their motion, the Court considers first whether it has jurisdiction. It does. See Part II. It then considers: whether Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; whether they will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; and whether a merged balance of the equities and public interest analysis favors a stay. See Part III. Each element favors Plaintiffs. See Parts IV, V, and VI. Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely. Secretary Noem

has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up, twelve countries down. See Section IV.A.2. Her conclusion that Haiti (a majority nonwhite country) faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified Administrative Record (CAR). See Section IV.A.3.a. She ignored Congress’s requirement that she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(A); see Section IV.A.1. Indeed, she did not consult other agencies at all. See id. Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so. See Section IV.A.3.b. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy. See id. The Government’s primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes, the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary, Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to replace executive whim with statutory predictability. See Section I.A. As to irreparable harm, the Government contends that, at most, the harms to Haitian TPS holders are speculative. But the Department of State (State) warns [screenshot]

Dkt. 100 (§ 705 Reply) at 20–21.4 “Do not travel to Haiti for any reason” does not exactly scream, as Secretary Noem concluded, suitable for return. And so, the Government studiously does not argue that Plaintiffs will suffer no harm if removed to Haiti. Instead, it argues Plaintiffs will not certainly suffer irreparable harm because DHS might not remove them. But this fails to take Secretary Noem at her word: “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.” See Section IV.B.2.b. Finally, the balance of equities and public interest favor a stay. The Government does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste. Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight. She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer? Turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. She complains of strains to our healthcare system. Her answer? Turn the insured into the uninsured. This approach is many things—in the public interest is not one of them. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705, Dkt. 81.

Even if you don't have time to read all 83 pages of Judge Reyes's opinion barring the Trump administration from rescinding Temporary Protected Status for 350,000+ Haitians, please at least check out the four-page introduction.

It's a tour de force:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Dog Killer Kristi Noem did it willingly and enjoyed every moment of the cruelty.

That immigration judge is a former DHS attorney. I worked on a case where she was the DHS attorney, before she became a judge, and she said that my client would not have been persecuted by Maduro if she had just requested a permit to protest before going out in the street to protest.

Although immigration judges can have hearings by video many judges at the San Antonio immigration court refuse to have hearings by video and force people to go in person for their hearing. Some of these hearings are only to get a final hearing date and only take five minutes.

I have hearings at the San Antonio immigration court a lot and I can say that ICE is there almost every day and there is a big white charter bus parked outside ready to take people. ICE officers now use the pro bono room as a lounge while pro bono organizations work outside in the parking lot.

May 12, 2025 MEMORANDUM FOR: All ICE Personnel FROM: Todd Lyons Acting Director SUBJECT: Utilizing Form I-205, Warrant of Removal On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to "ensur[e] the successful enforcement of final orders of removal." 90 Fed. Reg. 8443, 8444 (Jan. 20, 2025) (E.O. 14159). Essential to the removal of aliens subject to final orders of removal is the ability to locate and arrest them. To this end, certain supervisory immigration officers within both Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) are authorized to issue an administrative warrant, Form I-205, Warrant of Removal (Form 1-205), for the arrest of an alien with a final order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 241.2(a)(1). All U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents and deportation officers are authorized to execute Forms 1-205. 8 C.F.R. § 287.5(e)(3)(iii) - (y) Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose. Accordingly, in light of this legal determination, ICE immigration officers may arrest and detain aliens subject to a final under of removal issued by an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), or a U.S.

Arrow) district court judge or magistrate judge in their place of residence.23 ICE immigration officers should consider all available enforcement mechanisms, including the use of a Form 1-205 to arrest an alien in their place of residence, to achieve the requirements of E.O. 14159 in accordance with applicable law and policies. This guidance informs the use of Forms 1-205 and provides to ICE law enforcement personnel a reminder of the general limitations and exceptions that may apply when effectuating arrests in an alien's residence. General Guidelines ICE law enforcement officers receive extensive training on the legal and procedural requirements for making administrative and criminal arrests. ICE personnel must remain cognizant of all existing laws and policies pertaining to arrests when carrying out civil immigration enforcement actions. Prior to entering a residence to conduct an administrative immigration arrest pursuant to Form I-205, officers and agents must ensure the Form 1-205 is properly completed and is supported by a final order of removal issued by an immigration judge, the BIA, a U.S. district court, or a magistrate judge. This is essential because that order establishes probable cause. Officers and agents must also have reason to believe that the subject alien resides at and is currently located in the address where the Form I-205 is to be served.

ICE secretly told its officers that any time someone has been ordered removed, ICE can break down their door.

It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!

This is who DHS thinks should represent the US in Immigration Court.

Some immigration judges have already pretermitted asylum cases because applicants did not pay these fees retroactively.

The immigration court is no longer providing case information for asylum applicants online and is instead telling them that they must go in person to get any case information. And of course, ICE is lying in wait.

It's like a Choose Your Own Hatch Act Violation.

Perils of the Pentagon's Plan to Use Military Lawyers to Adjudicate Immigration Cases NA The Pentagon is planning to divert up to 600 military lawyers (known as "JAGs" - members of the Judge…

In this post, I describe why the Pentagon's plan to use JAG officers as immigration judges is dangerous and illegal. It also highlights a broader constitutional flaw in our immigration law system: reason.com/volokh/2025/...

Not only did federal goons show up to try and intimidate our governor, they did so on hallowed ground. Gov. Newsom was speaking at the Democracy Center at the Japanese American National Museum, which I helped found so we do not repeat the horrors and injustices of the past. Shameful.

I went to the San Antonio immigration court and there were about 5-6 ICE agents just hanging out in the pro bono room which is meant for, uh, pro bono attorneys to meet with their clients. Juuuust great.

I think this is the anti-Christian bias they are looking for.

Won my Cuban asylum case in El Paso! DHS waived appeal. Glad even they saw it was a strong case. So happy for my clients. They live in Odessa, Texas, not too far from my hometown. Keep fighting!

A Texas A&M student called me because his visa was revoked. This is so F-ing wrong. I had classmates that were here in student visas and did nothing but work hard and enrich the learning experience.

DHS is telling me, an immigration attorney, US citizen, that I have seven days to leave the country. I wasn’t paroled into this country. I was born here. The constitution says I’m a citizen. I ain’t going anywhere! I got clients to defend in court.

They really have nothing better to do.

So not just me. I thought it was for one of my clients, but no, it was addressed to me. I guess they want to deport immigration attorneys too. Who cares if they are US citizens.

Social Security Reclassifies Alive Immigrants as Dead to Push Them to Leave The Trump administration has moved to classify more than 6,000 living immigrants as dead, canceling their SSNs and effectively wiping out their ability to work or receive benefits.

One of my clients tried to pay his taxes, and the IRS rejected, because his Social Security number was invalid, even though the SSA issued it. This is explains why.

This is horrifying.

I had an immigration judge tell me that when the police told my client “you should pay the gang, it would be a shame if something bad happened to you” it was just the police looking out for him and not that the police were unable or unwilling to protect him.

Glad to see David D. Meyer’s name on this list! Now at @brooklynlawschool.bsky.social. but he was such a great dean during my time at @tulanelaw.bsky.social He helped me out when I needed support. Forever grateful. Thanks for standing up against this madness.

The asylum office scheduling interviews at 7:30am is some hateful sh*t.

The people I deal with regularly. This is very troubling. There is a DHS attorney to Immigration Judge pipeline. DOJ will often hire these people as immigration judges and we are supposed to pretend that they are impartial.

My client finally got his asylum interview scheduled after filing it in 2014.

Many people don’t know, but Immigration judges aren’t real judges. They are attorneys that work for the Attorney General. They are part of the executive branch and just follow whatever orders they are given. No real judicial independence. Also, the rules say we have to call them “your honor.”

The migrants on the frontline of Trump’s mass deportation plan Blanca Figueroa and Severiano Martinez have known from the start of their eight-year marriage that she was at risk of deportation because she entered the United States illegally.

US President-elect Donald Trump is expected to issue a flurry of executive orders aimed at speeding up the deportation process when he takes office, prompting an overwhelming source of anxiety for many migrants on the frontline of Trump’s plan reut.rs/3CfbBaD 1/8

The Dallas Immigration Court keeps rejecting my motion for not paying a fee even though the regulations and practice manual say no fee is required because it’s based on an asylum application. THE REGULATIONS SO NO FEE. I refiled explaining this and again they rejected. Ok,let’s ignore the law.