Walter A. v. Peter B. Berg
Walter A. v. Peter B. Berg, Director of St. Paul Enforcement and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Warden, Port Isabel Detention Center; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
- Susan Nelson
- 0:25-cv-04720
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
In Walter A. v. Peter B. Berg et al., Judge Susan Richard Nelson extended an existing order blocking the deportation of a 21-year-old Guatemalan immigrant who had been granted Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and deferred action by federal immigration authorities, preserving the status quo while the court addresses complex jurisdictional and merits questions.
Non-citizens who have been granted Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) and deferred action by USCIS but face active removal or deportation orders, particularly those detained in one federal judicial district while their prior legal proceedings occurred in another district.
What happened
In Walter A. v. Peter B. Berg et al. (No. 25-cv-4720), a 21-year-old Guatemalan immigrant named Walter A. faces deportation despite having been granted Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (a federal immigration classification protecting abused, neglected, or abandoned youth) and deferred action — a form of temporary protection from deportation — by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services through October 2028. After a series of immigration court proceedings, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed an earlier termination of his removal case, and an Immigration Judge ultimately entered a final removal order in October 2025. Walter A. then filed a petition in federal district court asking the court to block his removal, arguing that deporting him while his deferred action remains in effect violates his constitutional rights, federal immigration law, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The government responded by asking the court to dismiss the case or transfer it to a federal court in Texas, where Walter A. is currently detained, arguing that the Minnesota court lacks jurisdiction over a person held in Texas. The government also argued that a federal statute bars district courts from reviewing certain immigration enforcement decisions. Walter A. countered that Minnesota officials retained authority over his case, that his transfer to Texas may have been retaliatory, and that courts have previously granted habeas relief — a court order requiring the government to justify a person's detention — in similar cases involving deferred action status. Because both sides raised complicated legal questions that had not yet been fully briefed, the court found it could not resolve those questions immediately.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson extended the existing stay of removal — meaning federal authorities remain legally blocked from deporting Walter A. — until the court can rule on the pending motions. His motion for a temporary restraining order (an emergency court order) was denied as moot with respect to deportation because the stay extension already accomplishes that result, denied as to his request to be transferred back to Minnesota, and deferred as to other relief he sought. The court converted the temporary restraining order motion into a motion for a preliminary injunction (a longer-term court order) and scheduled a hearing for January 29, 2026, at which both the government's motion to dismiss and Walter A.'s request for relief will be addressed.
The detailed version
Case: Walter A. v. Peter B. Berg et al., No. 25-cv-4720 (SRN/LIB), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Judge: Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge. Order dated: December 22, 2025.
Parties and Background Petitioner Walter A. is a 21-year-old Guatemalan national who entered the United States without inspection at age 15 in 2020, allegedly fleeing physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. Respondents include Peter B. Berg (Director of St. Paul Enforcement and Removal Operations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE), Kristi Noem (Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security), the Warden of Port Isabel Detention Center, Todd Lyons (Acting Director of ICE), ICE itself, and Pamela Bondi (Attorney General of the United States).
Immigration Proceedings Following a May 2024 arrest in South Dakota on alcohol-related driving offenses (charges still pending), ICE arrested Walter A. and initiated removal proceedings. While in immigration detention, he obtained a Minnesota state court order in October 2024 finding him a dependent, at-risk juvenile who could not safely return to his parents and for whom return to Guatemala was not in his best interest. He then filed an I-360 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), disclosing his criminal history. On February 11, 2025, USCIS approved his SIJS petition and granted him deferred action through October 2028.
On February 21, 2025, an Immigration Judge (IJ) granted deferred action and terminated removal proceedings without prejudice. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, finding the IJ erred — allegedly based on a factual error that Petitioner had been convicted (not merely charged) with two DWI counts. On remand, the IJ denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, entering a final removal order on October 14, 2025, which became administratively final on November 13, 2025. Walter A. filed a motion to reopen in immigration court (denied) and has appealed to the BIA (pending). A stay of removal request filed with ICE also remains pending.
Prior Federal Court Proceedings Walter A. previously filed two habeas petitions (challenges to the lawfulness of his detention) in the District of Minnesota. In April 2025, Judge Paul Magnuson found the court lacked jurisdiction over three claims and denied relief on a due process claim, dismissing without prejudice (No. 25-cv-1915). In November 2025, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz found detention lawful because it fell within the mandatory 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), denying habeas relief without prejudice, but granted a limited stay extended through December 22, 2025 (No. 25-cv-4376).
Instant Petition and Motions On December 19, 2025, Walter A. filed the instant habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). He asserts violations of: (1) due process under the U.S. Constitution; (2) the Suspension Clause; (3) the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and (4) the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He argues that USCIS granted him SIJ status and deferred action, yet the government refuses to honor those grants. Respondents moved to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer to the Southern District of Texas (where Walter A. is detained at Port Isabel Detention Center), arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), improper use of habeas to secure transfer back to Minnesota, and relitigation of previously rejected arguments.
Jurisdiction Analysis The court found, for the limited purpose of extending the stay, that it has subject matter jurisdiction. It relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (general habeas jurisdiction) and I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). Addressing the government's argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) bars review (which limits challenges to commencement of proceedings, adjudication, and execution of removal orders), the court cited Sepulveda Ayala v. Bondi, 794 F. Supp. 3d 901 (W.D. Wash. 2025), finding § 1252(g) does not bar jurisdiction where the claims arise from the government's decision to grant deferred action combined with ICE's subsequent refusal to honor it. The court noted this jurisdictional question remains to be fully resolved.
Substantive SIJ and Deferred Action Analysis The court explained that SIJ status, established by Congress to protect abused, neglected, or abandoned children, requires physical presence in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). If Walter A. is removed, he would lose SIJ status and any meaningful opportunity for judicial review would be foreclosed. As to deferred action, the court noted that once granted, 'no action will thereafter be taken to proceed against an apparently deportable alien,' citing Reno v. AADC, 525 U.S. 471 (1999). The court further noted that USCIS's own June 2025 policy statement (Policy Alert PA-2025-07) states that aliens with deferred action based on SIJ classification 'will generally retain this deferred action' until the validity period expires. The court cited decisions from the Western District of Washington and Western District of Louisiana granting habeas relief in analogous circumstances.
Venue Analysis The court acknowledged the complexity of the venue question. Under Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), jurisdiction over core habeas petitions lies only in the district of confinement. Walter A. is confined in Texas. Petitioner argued, however, that Minnesota officials retained authority over his case and that his transfer to Texas was retaliatory and related to his habeas petition. The court did not resolve the venue question at this stage.
Disposition
- The existing stay of removal is extended indefinitely until the court rules on the pending motions. Respondents and all acting in concert with them are enjoined from removing Walter A. from the United States.
- The TRO motion is: (a) denied as moot as to deportation (the stay extension accomplishes the same result); (b) denied as to Walter A.'s request to be returned to the District of Minnesota; and (c) deferred as to other requested relief.
- The TRO motion is converted to a motion for a preliminary injunction (a longer-term court order pending resolution of the case), with a hearing scheduled for January 29, 2026 via Zoom, at which both the preliminary injunction motion and Respondents' motion to dismiss or transfer venue will be heard.
- Briefing schedule: Respondents' answer and response to preliminary injunction motion due January 15, 2026; Petitioner's reply due January 22, 2026; Respondents' reply on the venue motion also due January 15, 2026.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.