WASHINGTON, D.C. — A U.S. federal court has ordered immigration authorities to facilitate the return of an Indian national who was deported to India despite a court order explicitly barring his removal, ruling that the deportation was unlawful and violated judicial authority.
In a memorandum and order issued January 9, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas said Francisco D’Costa was removed from the United States on December 20, 2025, “more than three hours after the Court order prohibiting the Government from removing him” had been issued.
The court said it had assumed jurisdiction over D’Costa’s habeas petition earlier that morning and directed that the government “SHALL NOT remove or deport Petitioner from the United States” without first obtaining permission from the court.
Despite the order, D’Costa was placed on a Turkish Airlines flight that departed Houston at 2:55 p.m. the same day. According to a memorandum submitted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ICE officials, and the detention facility had notice of the stay before the flight departed.
“The intent behind Petitioner’s unlawful removal—while relevant to contempt—has no bearing on the lawfulness of the removal,” the court said, rejecting the government’s argument that the deportation was inadvertent.
D’Costa, a native of India who has lived in the United States since 2009, was granted voluntary departure by an immigration judge in October 2025. After retaining counsel, he filed a motion to reopen his case, citing changed country conditions in India and a risk of persecution due to his conversion to Christianity, according to court records.
Under federal regulations, the filing of the motion automatically converted his voluntary departure into a final removal order. While the immigration judge denied a request for a stay, the motion to reopen had not yet been ruled on at the time of D’Costa’s removal, the court said.
The court found that removing D’Costa at that stage risked depriving him of his statutory right to pursue a motion to reopen, raising serious due process concerns.
The government argued that facilitating D’Costa’s return was unnecessary, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction and that he could pursue further proceedings from abroad. The court rejected those arguments, stating that D’Costa’s return was required to ensure the case proceeds “as it would have been had he not been improperly removed”.
Citing a unanimous Supreme Court ruling, the court said facilitating return to the United States is an appropriate remedy when a noncitizen is unlawfully removed in violation of a court order.
The court directed the government to facilitate D’Costa’s return “as soon as possible” and ordered authorities to file, within five days, a plan outlining the steps they will take to do so.
At this stage, the court denied D’Costa’s request for contempt findings and monetary sanctions without prejudice, allowing those issues to be raised later if necessary. (Source: IANS)
