Background
Ifeoma Ada Chinweoke Ojukwu, a Nigerian citizen, entered the United States in 1999 and was ordered removed to Nigeria in 2013. The immigration judge simultaneously granted withholding of removal to Nigeria because Ojukwu feared persecution and torture there. She was released under supervision, later married a U.S. citizen, had U.S.-citizen children, and helped care for elderly relatives in Ohio.
After immigration authorities detained Ojukwu in September 2026, the government arranged to remove her to Ghana under a Department of Homeland Security policy governing third-country removals. Ghana had agreed to accept certain noncitizens and assured the State Department that they would not face persecution or torture there or in any country to which they might later be transferred. Ojukwu sought mandamus relief and temporary restraining orders, alleging that removal without a meaningful opportunity to contest the danger she might face in Ghana violated federal statutes and the Due Process Clause. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and Ojukwu appealed and requested an emergency stay of removal.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit denied the emergency stay. It held that Ojukwu had not made the required strong showing of likely success because her challenge to DHS’s third-country-removal policy raised the same claims asserted by the certified class in D.V.D. v. DHS. The Supreme Court had repeatedly stayed relief against that policy and most recently stayed the district court’s vacatur order while granting certiorari. The panel concluded that the Supreme Court’s treatment of the materially identical class claims controlled the equitable analysis.
The court also reasoned that Ojukwu, an absent member of the Rule 23(b)(2) D.V.D. class, could not obtain separate equitable relief by relitigating the same policy-or-practice claim. Her individual circumstances—including her lack of ties to Ghana and evidence of general country conditions—did not transform the claim into a distinct individual challenge. The evidence of irreparable harm was, at most, evenly balanced because her generalized evidence did not overcome Ghana’s diplomatic assurances. Given her weak merits showing and the public interest in executing lawful removal orders, the remaining stay factors favored the government.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen seeking an emergency stay of removal must make a strong showing of likely success and irreparable injury; those are the most critical factors.
- The Supreme Court’s stays in D.V.D. weighed decisively against equivalent individual requests to block removals under DHS’s third-country policy.
- An absent member of a certified Rule 23(b)(2) class generally may not pursue separate equitable relief based on the same policy-or-practice claim being litigated by the class.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the ability of D.V.D. class members to seek individualized injunctions against third-country removals while the Supreme Court reviews the legality of DHS’s policy. It also underscores that Supreme Court stay orders can guide lower courts’ equitable discretion in materially similar cases even before the Supreme Court resolves the underlying merits.
The panel nevertheless expressed concern that nationwide class certification can prevent absent members from pursuing relief in local courts and reduce opportunities for multiple courts to address unsettled legal questions. Those concerns did not alter the result because Ojukwu’s motion advanced the same general challenge already before the Supreme Court.