“Flagrant Violation”: Judge Orders Return of Mother Deported Despite DACA

On Monday, a federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Sacramento mother who was detained at her February green card interview and deported to Mexico within 24 hours. Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez had active protection from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which temporarily shields undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, at the time of her arrest and removal. In a 15-page decision granting Estrada Juarez’s motion for a temporary restraining order, Judge Dena Coggins ruled that she must be returned to the US within seven days of the court order. Estrada Juarez, the judge wrote, “was removed in flagrant violation of the regulatory protections afforded to her under DACA” and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The judge determined that she should have the protections afforded by DACA restored “as if her February 19, 2026, removal never occurred.” Estrada Juarez’s ordeal began in February, when she attended an appointment as part of her adjustment of status process to become a lawful permanent resident as the relative of a US citizen, her daughter Damaris Bello. Having lived in the United States for almost 30 years, and with her DACA status valid through at least April 2026 pending renewal, Estrada Juarez didn’t think she had reason to fear being detained. Still, at the interview, Estrada Juarez was told her case couldn’t be completed because she had a decades-old order of removal from when she first entered the country in 1998. The government then reinstated that order, which Estrada Juarez didn’t know about, to deport her. In early March, I spoke with Bello, who accompanied her mother to last month’s scheduled interview. She described what happened that day: Bello recalled that after a brief period of time, someone knocked on the interview room’s door and asked for Maria Estrada. When she answered, Bello said agents without uniform or name identification came in and said she was going to be detained and deported to Mexico. Before the officers could handcuff her, Estrada Juarez asked if she could hug her daughter one last time. She held Bello’s face and told her to be strong, that God would guide them to the right place. “It was so sudden and unexpected,” Bello said. “It felt like she never really had a chance.” By the next morning, Estrada Juarez had been sent to Mexico, a country she hadn’t lived in since she was 15 years old. The separation proved devastating for Estrada Juarez and Bello, an only child. After Estrada Juarez’s sudden deportation, Bello said she would likely have to move out of their shared home because she couldn’t afford rent or utility bills without her mother’s income from her job as a Motel 6 regional manager. “My whole life has to change because she’s not here,” Bello told me. “I feel like I’m grieving my mother.” On March 10, Estrada Juarez filed a petition in the district court for the Eastern District of California, arguing that her removal was unlawful and violated her due process rights. Estrada Juarez has continuously held DACA status since 2013. In 2014, the government authorized her to leave the country for a short trip, and she was lawfully admitted when she returned. The petition claims Estrada Juarez never received a copy of the 1998 reinstated expedited removal order or notice of the reason for her February deportation. Instead, it says she was handed a document stating she was barred from coming back to the United States because an immigration judge had ordered her removed, even though she didn’t appear before one. Records show Estrada Juarez refused to sign the form. Still, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied her adjustment of status application on the basis of that decades-old removal order. But Estrada Juarez’s lawyer, Stacy Tolchin, said the 1998 order, which the government submitted as part of the record in the case, wasn’t signed by a supervising officer and can’t be considered final. “They’ve reinstated something that doesn’t exist,” Tolchin said on Tuesday. “The whole thing has fallen apart.” Even if the order was valid, she explained, Estrada Juarez’s DACA status should have prevented it from being enforced. (Tolchin has asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the order of reinstatement of removal and filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the green card denial with USCIS.) The government opposed Estrada Juarez’s petition, arguing the court lacked the authority to review “discretionary decisions” to execute a removal order and mandate her return. The administration also contended that the court didn’t have jurisdiction over her habeas claims because Estrada Juarez had already been removed and was no longer “in custody.” Judge Coggins disagreed, citing Ninth Circuit precedent allowing a noncitizen unlawfully deported from the United States “under extreme circumstances” to seek their return, despite not being detained in the district where they are challenging their removal. “Indeed, it is difficult to argue that Petitioner’s removal constitutes anything less than an ‘extreme circumstance,'” the judge wrote. She further rejected the government’s position that Estrada Juarez didn’t meet the “extreme circumstances” standard because she hadn’t, within the less than 24 hours between her detention and deportation, rushed to court to secure an emergency order stopping her removal. “Essentially, Respondents argue that the government is immune from liability from any claim for violation of a noncitizen’s right to due process in removal proceedings so long as that right is violated quickly,” the decision reads. Judge Coggins recognized that “each day Petitioner remains unlawfully separated from her daughter, they both suffer unimaginable irreparable harm.” In a declaration submitted to the court, Estrada Juarez and Bello described the “severe emotional trauma and financial hardship” they have experienced, adding that her “wrongful deportation has deeply broken [her] family.” Bello wrote in her own declaration that her mother’s removal “has left [her] feeling completely alone and afraid.” To Tolchin, this case shows why the courts and due process are important. “We’re seeing [the Department of Homeland Security] trying to hide due process and people’s constitutional rights from them,” she said. In a statement, Estrada Juarez expressed relief and hope of coming back to the United States soon: “I followed the rules and trusted the process, and I just want to return to my family and rebuild my life.”