Die Vorgeschichte

„Rückholung weiterer Abgeschobener (neben K. Abrego Garcia & „Cristian“) steht im Raume.“

Konkret zu dem Fall O.C.G. berichtete ich, daß der District Court Massachusetts am 28. April angeordnet hatte:

„(1) the parties will conduct expedited discovery limited to the issue of whether, or to what extent, Plaintiff O.C.G. received notice that he would be removed to Mexico and any response he provided to that notice the parties will conduct expedited discovery limited to the issue of whether, or to what extent, Plaintiff O.C.G. received notice that he would be removed to Mexico and any response he provided to that notice; (2) all responses to requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and admissions shall be completed by May 12, 2025; (3) each side will be limited to 10 total written discovery requests (the requests for interrogatories and admissions); (4) the deposition of the officer who allegedly provided O.C.G. with notice shall be completed by May 19, 2025; (5) the deposition will be limited to 4 hours; and (6) Defendants must produce O.C.G.’s a-file by May 12, 2025, without redactions, aside from those necessary to protect privileged information or as required by a protective order.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-80)

Daraus erfahren wir:

O.C.G. wurde nach Mexiko abgeschoben; strittig war, ob er darüber vorher informierte wurde – also Gelegenheit hatte, gegen die drohende Abschiebung nach Rechtsschutz nachzuschen.

Die Regierung hatte zuvor behauptet, O.C.G. sei informiert worden und habe sogar gesagt, er habe keine Angst, nach Mexiko abgeschoben zu werden. O.C.G. bestritt das.

Schließlich berichtete ich über das, was Freitag, den 16. Mai und an den folgenden Tagen passierte:

a) Die Regierung reichte eine Notice of Errata ein, in der es u.a. heißt:

„Defendants hereby advise the Court of an error in the March 25, 2025, declaration of Brian Ortega. See Declaration of Brian Ortega, ECF No 31-1. The declaration represented, based on internal database information, that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, (ICE ERO) ‚verbally asked O.C.G. if he was afraid of being returned to Mexico. At this time O.C.G. stated he was not afraid of returning to Mexico.‘ Id. at ¶¶ 2, 13; Ex. A, Declaration of Brian Ortega at ¶ 5. Defendants have relied on this declaration to make corresponding statements to the Court. See e.g., ECF No. 31 at 19. 21. Upon further investigation, Defendants cannot identify any officer who asked O.C.G. whether he had a fear of return to Mexico.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.103.0_1.pdf, S. 2 [von 3 Seiten])

b) Darauf reichten die Betroffenen Sonntag, den 18. Mai eine weitere Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction nebst 20-seitiger Begründung ein:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.104.0_3.pdf.

c) Die Regierung antwortete Dienstag, den 20. Mai:

Response to Motion re 104 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Pamela Bondi [Heimatschutzministerin], et al.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.113.0.pdf (10 Seiten)

Die Gerichtsentscheidung von heute Nacht

Im Lauf der mitteleuropäischen Nacht von Freitag zu Samstag kam die Entscheidung des Gerichts:

„Defendants are hereby ORDERED to take all immediate steps, including coordinating with Plaintiffs’ counsel, to facilitate10 the return of O.C.G. to the United States. Defendants shall file a status report within five days of this Order updating the Court as to the status of O.C.G.’s return.“

„The Court notes that ‚facilitate‘ in this context should carry less baggage than in several other notable cases. O.C.G. is not held by any foreign government. Defendants have declined to make any argument that facilitating his return would be costly, burdensome, or otherwise impede the government’s objectives. The Court anticipates that Defendants will take at least the same level of action as is routine to return lawfully removed aliens. See ICE Policy Directive No. 11061.1, § 3.1, Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens (Feb. 24, 2012). Given that this Court has found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that O.C.G.’s removal was not lawful, there is no reason for Defendants to take less action than they would when returning a lawfully removed alien.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.132.0.pdf, 13 mit FN 10; Hv. i.O.)

Zur Begründung führt das Gericht u.a. aus:

„the Court finds that the public benefits from living in a country where rules are followed and where promises are kept. Rules are tedious and frustrating, but they also keep us fair and honest.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.132.0.pdf, S. 13)

Es geht hier um die Regel, daß der Staat Betroffene, die er beabsichtigt abzuschieben, so rechtzeitig darüber informieren muß, daß sie Gelegenheit haben, dagegen die Gerichte anzurufen.

Und es geht um folgendes Versprechen:

„the immigration judge told O.C.G. — consistent with this Court’s understanding of the law — that he could not be removed to a country other than his native Guatemala, at least not without some additional steps in the process.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.132.0.pdf, S. 1)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.132.0.pdf (14 Seiten)

Dkt. 31-1 ¶ 3 [gemeint ist Nr. 13 <nicht: 3>]

„On or about February 21, 2025, prior to O.C.G being removed to Mexico, ERO verbally asked O.C.G. if he was afraid of being returned to Mexico. At this time, O.C.G. stated he was not afraid of returning to Mexico.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.31.1_1.pdf, S. 3, Nr. 13)

Dkt. 8-4 ¶ 9
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.8.4_1.pdf, S. 3, Nr. 3

Dkt. 64
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.64.0_7.pdf

Dkt. 80
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-80

Dkt. 103
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.103.0_1.pdf

Dkt. 40
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.40.0_1.pdf

Dkt. 64
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.64.0_7.pdf

Peoples Federal Sav. Bank v. People’s United Bank, 672 F.3d 1, 8–9 (1st Cir. 2012)
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/622599/peoples-federal-savings-bank-v-peoples-united-bank/, Textziffer 5

PS.:

Es gibt noch eine weitere Neuigkeit zu dem Verfahren zu berichten – dazu später.