DACA Recipient, Jessica Colotl: Detained for One Month by ICE; Ordered Deported

Photo of Jessica Colotl

This post is simple: It is a quoted section from a court opinion and ruling that has temporarily prevented the Trump administration from deporting Jessica Colotl. The facts speak for themselves.

Plaintiff is a twenty-eight-year-old citizen of Mexico, who has lived continuously in the United States since she first entered here without inspection in 1999 when she was eleven years old. She graduated from Lakeside High School in DeKalb County, Georgia, in May 2006, with honors. She then earned a bachelor's degree in political science from Kennesaw State University in 2011, where she was named to the President's List for her academic performance. While attending college, she was active in several student organizations, including the Hispanic Scholarship Fund and the Mexican American Student Alliance. She also helped found the Epsilon Alpha Chapter of the Lambda Theta Alpha sorority, an organization dedicated to the needs of Latinas and women.

Since graduating, Plaintiff has worked at a local law firm and aspires to attend law school and become an immigration lawyer. She has also continued to remain active in the community, volunteering for the Annual Latino Youth Leadership Conference, donating blood platelets at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, and fundraising for St. Jude Children's Hospital. She is also a member of a church in Norcross, Georgia and remains active in her sorority. Plaintiff has advocated for immigration reform locally and in Washington, D.C.

B. Plaintiff's Arrest and Criminal Proceeding

On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff was pulled over by campus police for allegedly blocking traffic while waiting for a parking space. She had no driver's license because she is ineligible to obtain one in Georgia due to her immigration status. The next day, Plaintiff was arrested on charges of impeding the flow of traffic and driving without a license, and booked into the Cobb County jail. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was acquitted of impeding the flow of traffic, but found guilty of the misdemeanor offense of driving without a license, for which she served three days in jail and paid a fine.

In February 2011, Plaintiff was indicted for allegedly making a false statement during the process whereby she was booked into the Cobb County jail on the earlier traffic violation charges. It was alleged that Plaintiff knowingly provided a false address during booking; although she never told an officer her address, an officer recorded address information from a vehicle insurance card that the officer took from her purse. The address the officer recorded from Plaintiff's insurance card was, in fact, her correct permanent home address at that time. Her parents moved from that address one month later, in April 2010.

Plaintiff entered a plea of not guilty to the false statement charge and the District Attorney offered her the option of entering into a pre-trial diversion program as an alternative to prosecution, whereby she would not be required to enter a guilty plea and the charge would be dismissed upon completion of her community service. Plaintiff elected to enter the diversion program and signed a “Diversion Agreement” containing a statement acknowledging that her participation in the program constituted an admission of guilt to the charge against her. Plaintiff successfully completed the diversion program, and the false statement charge was dismissed in January 2013. See Order dated Jan. 9, 2013 [Doc. 14–4] (dismissing criminal case against Plaintiff). Plaintiff has no other criminal history.

C. Plaintiff's Removal Proceeding

After Plaintiff's arrest in March 2010, she was referred to U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), which initiated removal proceedings. Plaintiff was placed in immigration detention during the removal proceedings, where she was detained for approximately one month. On April 28, 2010, she accepted an order of voluntary departure, which permitted her to leave the United States within thirty days without the entry of a deportation order. After receiving her voluntary departure order, Plaintiff was granted deferred action status by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), resulting in her release from detention and allowing her to remain in the United States to complete her undergraduate degree.

On July 15, 2014, Plaintiff moved the immigration court to reopen her removal proceeding and administratively close the case. See Decision of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dated Oct. 6, 2016 [Doc. 14–11] (“BIA Decision”); Am. Compl. ¶ 59. The immigration judge denied her request on January 26, 2015, and Plaintiff appealed. BIA Decision; Am. Compl. ¶ 60. The BIA sustained Plaintiff's appeal, reversed the immigration judge's decision, reopened Plaintiff's removal proceeding, and remanded the case to the immigration court for administrative closure. BIA Decision; Am. Compl. ¶ 60.

Although her immigration case was remanded to the immigration court on October 6, 2016, with an order to administratively close the case, no action has been taken to close that case and it remains pending as of the date of this Order. On March 29, 2017, ICE counsel filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to reopen her removal proceeding and administratively close her case, making the following argument: “[O]n February 20, 2017, the Department [of Homeland Security] issued a memorandum, titled ‘Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest.’ Due to the respondent's criminal history, she is an enforcement priority under this memorandum.” DHS's Suppl. Br. on Eligibility for Relief [Doc. 14–12] (filed in Plaintiff's removal proceeding) at 3.

**

ORDER
The Court finds that the harm to Plaintiff in the absence of an injunction will exceed any harm suffered by Defendants because of the grant of a preliminary injunction. By granting an injunction until the merits of the underlying dispute are adjudicated, the Court is simply requiring Defendants to comply with DHS’s written procedures as to the adjudication of DACA applications and the termination of DACA status. There can be no harm to Defendants in requiring them to follow their own written guidelines, but the harm to Plaintiff by Defendants' failure to do so is significant. Furthermore, because the public has an interest in government agencies being required to comply with their own written guidelines instead of engaging in arbitrary decision making, Plaintiff has made the requisite showing that the public interest would be served by this Court's entry of a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from failing to comply with their written operating procedures.