United States District Court, D. Minnesota
L. Wilson, Esq. and Wilson Law Group, counsel for petitioner.
Voss, United States Attorney counsel for respondents.
S. Doty, Judge
matter is before the court upon the motion for a temporary
restraining order by petitioner Abdullahi Abukar Mohamed.
Based on a review of the file, record, and proceedings
herein, and for the following reasons, the motion is denied.
is a citizen of Somalia who has resided in the United States
since 2014. Pet. ¶ 1. On March 23, 2014, he applied for
asylum in San Ysidro, California, based on his membership in
a minority clan in Somalia. Id. ¶ 29; Wilson
Decl. Ex. F at 2. He also filed applications for withholding
of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Pet. ¶ 29. The immigration judge (IJ) denied
the applications on October 18, 2016, and ordered
Mohamed's removal. Id. Mohamed did not appeal
2017, Mohamed filed for an adjustment of status based on his
marriage to a United States citizen. See Wilson
Decl. Ex. G. He was taken into custody by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March 2018 when he appeared for
an interview relating to his marriage-based petition. That
petition remains pending.
thereafter filed a motion to reopen his asylum case in the
San Diego Immigration Court based on changed circumstances in
Somalia. Id. Ex. H. On April 23, 2018, the IJ denied
the motion. Id. Ex. F. Mohamed filed an appeal with
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) challenging the
denial. Id. Ex. E. That appeal is pending. He also
filed requests to stay his removal pending final resolution
of his marriage-based application and his appeal. Those
requests have been denied. Id. Exs. A, C. Mohamed is
currently awaiting removal in a detention center in
Louisiana. Pet. ¶ 1.
26, 2018, Mohamed filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking
a stay of his removal and release from detention, claiming
that (1) his removal subjects him to risk of persecution and
torture by the terrorist group Al-Shabaab, (2) his removal
before the BIA rules on his pending motions constitutes a
violation of due process, and (3) his detention is unlawful.
The same day, Mohamed filed this motion for a temporary
restraining order (TRO) seeking a stay of his
Standard of Review
is an extraordinary equitable remedy, and the movant bears
the burden of establishing its propriety. Watkins Inc. v.
Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003). The purpose of
a TRO is to “preserve the status quo until the merits
[of the case] are determined.” Dataphase Sys., Inc.
v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981). In
determining whether it should issue a TRO, the court
considers: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant
in the absence of relief, (2) the balance between the harm to
the movant in the absence of relief and the harm that the
relief may cause the non-moving party, (3) the likelihood of
the movant's ultimate success on the merits, and (4) the
public interest. Id. at 114. But if a court
determines it lacks jurisdiction over the matter, it need not
analyze the Dataphase factors. Buezo v.
Banieke, No. 08-206, 2008 WL 312808, at *2 (D. Minn.
Feb. 1, 2008).
court lacks jurisdiction over any case that challenges the
decision of the Attorney ...