AI Generated Image (not the people or facilities involved in this story)
A Manhattan federal judge extended a ban on deporting five Afghan detainees to Pakistan, Afghanistan or any third country and required a week’s notice of any new removal plan, rejecting for now the government’s argument that he lacks jurisdiction.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York on Friday, Nov. 6, amended and extended the temporary restraining order that Judge Valerie Caproni had issued on Nov. 3 in a suit brought by Project Rousseau, Inc., a nonprofit that provides legal services to asylum seekers, according to the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) and Khaama Press. Caproni’s order, which Immigration Analytics covered on Nov. 4, was set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 7. Marrero’s order has no end date; it stays in place until the court orders otherwise, IANS reported.
The extension matters because the first order was built on a government promise that expired with the week. Caproni held the government to its representation that no charter or commercial flights were planned to remove Afghans to Afghanistan or Pakistan. Marrero’s order goes further for the people it covers: it is a direct bar on removal to any third country, plus an advance-notice requirement, and it comes with a preliminary ruling on the jurisdiction question that has defeated other Afghan detainees in court.
What the Nov. 6 order does
According to IANS, the order bars the government from deporting the Afghan nationals identified by Project Rousseau in a court filing (Dkt. No. 16) to Pakistan, Afghanistan or any other third country until the court orders otherwise. IANS identified five people, each with a final removal order and held in detention in Texas or Louisiana. The government must notify the court and Project Rousseau of any planned deportation of them “no later than one week before any such deportation,” IANS reported.
The relief is narrow. It protects five named people, not the larger group of Afghans the government has reportedly planned to remove through Pakistan, and it is still a temporary restraining order, not a preliminary injunction or a final ruling. IANS reported that amended pleadings and preliminary-injunction briefing are under way. A Nov. 9 immigration newsletter that links to the court docket listed the case as Project Rousseau, Inc. v. Venturella and said the order set a Nov. 9 deadline for an amended complaint. No major outlet has independently confirmed that deadline, and Immigration Analytics has not yet obtained the order itself.
The defendants are acting ICE Director David J. Venturella, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Attorney General Todd Blanche and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, all sued in their official capacities, according to IANS. The complaint was filed Nov. 2.
The jurisdiction ruling
The government argued that immigration statutes strip district courts of power to hear the case. The main provision in such disputes is 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), which bars district-court review of claims “arising from” decisions to execute removal orders. Marrero rejected that argument for now, at the TRO stage, IANS reported. He described the suit as being about the procedures the government must follow when, after deciding to remove someone, it chooses to send that person to a country not named in the removal order. On that framing, the case does not challenge the removal orders themselves.
That distinction is the main lesson for practitioners. Courts have been more willing to hear third-country removal claims framed as challenges to procedure, meaning notice, a chance to raise a fear claim, and compliance with DHS’s own guidance, than claims that ask a court to stop a removal outright. Our Nov. 4 article noted that a federal judge in El Paso had cited a lack of jurisdiction on Oct. 29 when she refused to halt one Afghan man’s removal, as CBS News reported. Marrero’s preliminary view points the other way. Because it was made at the TRO stage, it is not a final holding, and the government can raise the issue again in the preliminary-injunction briefing.
The Pakistan route raises a protection question. A grant of withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture protection as to Afghanistan bars removal to Afghanistan. A flight that ends in Pakistan, followed by an overland transfer, invites the argument that the government is reaching the forbidden destination indirectly. A notice period gives counsel time to raise that claim, and to seek a stay, before anyone boards a plane.
Nov. 16 and the wider operation
AfghanEvac, an advocacy group, has warned that ICE plans to resume deporting Afghans after Nov. 16, Khaama Press reported on Nov. 11. Khaama added that U.S. authorities have not confirmed that schedule. Marrero’s order would not stop removals of Afghans who are not among the five named people. Pakistan’s role is also uncertain. On Nov. 10, an ICE charter carrying Iranians turned back shortly after leaving Arizona when Pakistan reportedly refused the group, as Immigration Analytics reported. Pakistan’s foreign office has said the Afghan transit request is under consideration.
A notice order is the same tool used in the Iranian removals litigation in Washington, where Judge Ana C. Reyes requires advance notice before any removal to Iran (see our coverage of how that notice order is being tested). In Congress, a discharge petition on the Afghanistan TPS Act is trying to force a House vote before Jan. 3.
Practical takeaways
- For Afghan clients with final orders, check whether the client holds withholding or CAT protection as to Afghanistan, and keep motions to reopen and stay requests ready based on changed country conditions.
- Third-country removal challenges framed around procedure, such as notice, a fear screening and DHS guidance, have done better on jurisdiction than claims attacking the removal order itself.
- Organizational plaintiffs can win relief for specifically identified people. Counsel for detainees who are not covered may want to ask whether clients can be added to the identified group or need their own petitions.
Dates and decisions to watch
- Nov. 16: the date after which AfghanEvac says ICE may resume Afghan removals (not confirmed by U.S. authorities).
- Preliminary-injunction briefing in the Project Rousseau case, schedule not yet public.
- Any notice the government files under the one-week requirement.
- Jan. 3, 2027: deadline for the Afghanistan TPS Act discharge petition.
This report is based on IANS and Khaama Press accounts of the order, together with a newsletter summary of the docket. Immigration Analytics has not yet reviewed the order itself and will update this article if the court record differs.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- US Judge Bars Removal Of Five Afghans, IANS via MENAFN (Nov. 9, 2026)
- US judge bars removal of five Afghans, IANS via Social News XYZ (Nov. 9, 2026)
- Could Pakistan Become a Secret Transit Hub for Trump’s Afghan Deportations?, Khaama Press (Nov. 12, 2026)
- AfghanEvac Warns Trump Administration Could Resume Deporting Afghans After November 16, Khaama Press (Nov. 11, 2026)
- Weekly Immigration Update: Congress Flips, Deportation Data, and ICE Detentions, newsletter (Nov. 9, 2026)
- NY Judge Bars Afghan Removals To Pakistan, For Now, Law360 (Nov. 3, 2026)
- 8 U.S.C. 1252, Judicial review of orders of removal, Cornell LII
About the Author
