US court orders return of Indian wrongfully deported despite stay

A US federal court ordered immigration authorities to facilitate the return of an Indian national deported in violation of a court stay, ruling the removal unlawful and a breach of due process and judicial authority.

Washington: A US federal court, in a one of its kind verdicts, 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. The judge ruled that the deportation was unlawful and a violation of judicial authority.

In a memorandum and order issued on January 9, the US 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 noted that it had assumed jurisdiction over D’Costa’s habeas petition earlier that morning and ordered that the government “SHALL NOT remove or deport Petitioner from the United States” without first obtaining permission from the court.

Despite that order, the court said, 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 US 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, the court record shows.

The filing of that motion automatically converted his voluntary departure into a final removal order under federal regulations. The immigration judge denied a stay request but had not ruled on the motion to reopen at the time of D’Costa’s removal, the court said.

In its order, the court said removal at that stage risked depriving D’Costa of his statutory right to pursue a motion to reopen, raising serious due process concerns.

However, the government argued that facilitating D’Costa’s return was unnecessary. The court lacked jurisdiction; it asserted that D’Costa could pursue further proceedings abroad. The court rejected those arguments, stating that return was required to ensure the case is handled “as it would have been had he not been improperly removed”.

Citing a unanimous Supreme Court ruling, the court said is a proper remedy when a noncitizen is unlawfully removed in violation of a court order.

The court ordered the government to facilitate D’Costa’s return “as soon as possible” and directed 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, the order said.