Ramos-Lopez: D. Maryland Preliminary Injunction Facilitating SIJS Return

Ramos-Lopez v. Bondi, 2026 WL 1745700 (D. Md. June 17, 2026), arose after the government summarily removed a young person who had SIJS and deferred action through 2027. He sought a preliminary injunction requiring the government to facilitate his return.

SIJS and deferred action before removal

Ramos-Lopez had received an in absentia removal order at age twelve, later obtained the state-court predicate findings and federal SIJS approval, and received deferred action. Removal to Guatemala effectively deprived him of the ability to maintain and use those protections while he remained abroad.

Jurisdiction and venue

The court read 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) narrowly and held that it did not bar claims challenging allegedly unlawful rescission of SIJS and deferred action. It also rejected transfer, allowing the case to proceed in Maryland.

Likely unlawful rescission

At the preliminary-injunction stage, the court found likely success on APA and due-process theories. The government had not used the revocation procedure tied to SIJS approval and had supplied no advance process before an action that effectively stripped the existing benefits.

Why return was the remedy

An injunction limited to future process would not correct removal already completed. The court ordered the government to facilitate return, restore the status quo, and avoid re-detention on return absent a new lawful basis. It also found irreparable harm and favorable equities on the record.

Do not treat SIJS as an ICWC class

SIJS was not one of the three provisional ICWC classes. This case rests on SIJS-specific statutes, regulations, deferred-action policy, and constitutional process. Its persuasive value lies in the analysis of an existing benefit and a restorative remedy—not in expanding the ICWC class definitions.