Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00164

#1

Feb 09, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number 200018025), filed by JOSE JAVIER MOLINA VARGAS. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E) (sms) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#2

Feb 09, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by JOSE JAVIER MOLINA VARGAS. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (sms) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#3

Feb 09, 2026

BRIEF in Support re 2 Motion for TRO filed by JOSE JAVIER MOLINA VARGAS. (sms) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#4

Feb 09, 2026

ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO. Petitioner Molina Vargas, a citizen of Venezuela, seeks a temporary retraining order enjoining Respondents from transferring him from the Western District of Pennsylvania without first allowing [him] a meaningful opportunity to be heard on his fear-based claim before an Immigration Judge in compliance with due process. (ECF No. 3, p. 16). Specifically, Petitioner, who has been ordered removed from the United States, seeks to challenge the decision to remove him to Mexico, which was not designated in the removal order. Petitioner contends that because Mexico was not specified in the order of removal, he has not had an opportunity to challenge this removal to that country and, moreover, to present his fear-based claims under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner argues that the ordinary procedure for review of orders of removal set forth at 8 U.S.C. 1252 does not apply because the designation of Mexico as the intended country of removal was not included in the order of removal. The Court is compelled to deny the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order for lack of jurisdiction. First, to the extent that the Motion is construed narrowly only to bar transfer of Petitioner from this District, federal district courts lack the jurisdiction to do so. See: Sinclair v. Attorney General of the U.S., 198 Fed. Apx. 218, 222, n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (The place of detention is left to the discretion of the Attorney General.); Jane v. Rodriguez, 2020 WL 10140953 at *1 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020). Thus, the Court may not enjoin the transfer of Petitioner from this District. To the extent that the Motion is construed more broadly to challenge the Petitioner's removal to Mexico, the Court likewise lacks jurisdiction. As Petitioner concedes, the sole means of review of any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States is a petition for review in one of the courts of appeals. 8 U.S.C. 1252. He contends that this case is different because the specific country of removal, Mexico, was not stated in the order of removal, depriving him of his chance to develop his fear-based claim under the CAT. This does not make a difference. In Tonfack v. Attorney General, 580 Fed.Apx. 79 (3d Cir. 2014), the Court explained that a petition for review in the circuit courts remains the sole avenue of challenging a removal even where the country of removal is not set forth in the order of removal. District Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain such questions. As such, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied. Signed by Judge William S. Stickman on 2/9/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Stickman, William) Modified text on 2/10/2026. (eca) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

Feb 09, 2026

Judge William S. Stickman added. (sms)

Feb 09, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#5

Feb 10, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge William S. Stickman on 02/10/26. (eca) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#12

Mar 17, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case