In Other Media-eg NYLJ Fortune 2023, CJR, NY Mag, AJE, Georgia, CSM Click here to contact us     .

by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Nov 17 – An Ecuadorian teenager in the Bronx who has been in immigration detention was ordered free on bail on November 17 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Cathy Seibel. Inner City Press live tweeted it, from the thread

Judge Seibel: Is EJCC in the custody of his uncle yet? He's applied as a foster parent?

AUSA: We have the vet the sponsor under the Trafficking Act Judge: So we have to pretend he's still an unaccompanied minor- souldn't a court rectify that?

AUSA: Not how it works  Judge Seibel: But a state court has granted guardianship to the uncle. If there's a problem, God forbid, that's on the state court, no? AUSA: I'm told that's not how it works. There are many UACs in ORR custody. There's an HSI interview required 

Judge Seibel: The amici tell me that kids are being held up to six months, even when they have a safe place to go... Let me ask about the new policy. Does it mean that ICE will no longer consider deferred action in these cases? AUSA: It's no longer automatic 

Petitioner's counsel: They are not considering it at all anymore. Judge Seibel: That's how I read it Judge Seibel: In your petition you say you want a stay of removal until he can apply - which could be years, until there's a visa available. What if the answer is no, we're not deferring action? Petitioner's lawyer: That's a question for another day  Judge Seibel: If you are entitled to something, that one thing. If it's decretionary...Why can't they change their policy?

Petitioner's lawyer: He has a right, they are constrained by policy. Deferred action may be discretionary, but they have promulgated policies  Judge Seibel: On SIJ status there's an old song many of you are probably not aware of, War - what is it good for? SIJ status, what is it good for? A: SIJ status does not afford with it protection for removal 

Judge Seibel: Isn't that making a mockery of what Congress intended when they passed the statute? AUSA: The statute does not provide protection while waiting in line Judge: I think it has to, otherwise the whole thing is illusory  Judge Seibel: Even the previous Administration didn't say that SIJ didn't confer lawful status- AUSA: That's right, it's in the document.

Judge: But don't you have the right to stay until you can try to adjust? AUSA: No.  Petitioner's lawyer: The document AUSA Kroll is citing is not from Congress, it's from CIS. SIJ has rigorous requirements. It has to mean something, before they just pluck you out of the line. They want you to say the statute means nothing  Judge Seibel: If deferred action is no longer a thing, how can I order it?

Petititioner's lawyer: J [voluntarily redacted] is entitled to a determination. The policy had not been changed in April when he was approved Judge: In July they determined deferred action is no longer a thing  Judge Seibel: The putative class action in EDNY, I pulled up the docket but could not read the documents Petitioner's lawyer: I've printing out the documents that are helpful to me

Judge: Didn't the petitioner says he was willing to stay this case if not removed?  Judge: Then we could wait out the EDNY decision. What if the EDNY judge says it is not an APA violation?

Petitioner's lawyer: Previously the approval rate was over 99%. But we think he's entitled to more Judge: I wouldn't have to reach that. That's always nice  AUSA Kroll: The right is only if the visa is available. Judge Seibel: Do they say that? AUSA: They say "when available." Judge: What about, Congress has decided not to make visa available, ergo your client is out of luck.

Petitioner's lawyer: It's about timing  Petitioner's lawyer: An order of removal is not a basis of revoking SIJ status. Removal for J [voluntarily redacted] is arbitrary and capricious. These are two parts of DHS making different findings. It's the definition of arbitrary and capricious. 

Judge Seibel: There is a case out of Massachusetts that SIJ status alone does not render alien lawfully in the US, and thus does not entitle him to release. Why is that wrong? Petitioner's lawyer: That's dicta... His mother self-deported to Ecuador so his uncle

 Judge Seibel: Forget ORR, I want to make sure that if I grant bail I am not sending your client to an unsuitable situation. In a criminal case, I'd ask, who else lives there? Are they law abiding? Petitioner's lawyer: A state court found it appropriate

 Judge Seibel: Who else lives there? Petitioner's lawyer: Some other children... But a state court has already found it appropriate. You could order his release right now. Judge: Anything else either side wants to say?

AUSA: If you overstay a visa, you can't stay. I have law school colleague with a J visa, but if they overstay, they cannot stay. Let me correct a few citations so that ORR is not mad at me 

Petitioner's lawyer: J [voluntarily redacted] should be returned to his lawful guardian. He should not sit in detention. Judge Seibel: That is all relevant to bail. It's not relevant to the legal issues. It's not my place to decide if what the government is doing is heartless 

Judge Seibel: But I am going to address bail. Under Mapp, court can provide bail. The petitioner must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. We all agree petitioner does not present any danger to the community. There are substantial claims in the petition 

Judge Seibel: He wants to stay here, he's been here three years. There are extraordinary circumstances here that render release necessary. He is not an unaccompanied minor. It was Orwellian or Kafkaesque for the government not to acknowledge that fact 

Judge Seibel: He was going to public school in The Bronx, the credits at ORR may not translate. So immediate release is necessary. See Mahdawi v. Trump, District of Vermont, 2025. The Government believes itself unable to extricate him from the process 

Judge Seibel: So I order him released on bail so long as he reside with his uncle [voluntarily redacted] - submit me an order to that effect. My order is effective right now 

Judge: I think the uncle's name can be public.... I will consider the rest.  Should my counterpart in the Eastern District rule on anything, you'll let me know?

Yes. 

The case is E.J.C.C. v. Joyce, et al., 1:25-cv-8805 (Seibel)

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2025 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com