California DACA Recipient Sues to Halt Deportation, Claims Due Process Violation

(SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA) — Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez filed a federal lawsuit on March 10, 2026, seeking her immediate return to the United States after U.S. officials deported her to Mexico.

Estrada Juarez, a 42-year-old DACA recipient and Sacramento resident, said she was detained during a scheduled USCIS interview tied to her green card application and removed soon after, despite holding active DACA status.

The complaint argues her deportation violated due process because she received no notice of a lawful removal order and had no opportunity to appear before an immigration judge.

Estrada Juarez works as a regional manager for Motel 6, according to the lawsuit, which names the federal government as the defendant.

Federal immigration authorities detained her on February 18, 2026, when she appeared for her immigration appointment, the suit says.

U.S. officials deported her to Mexico on February 19, 2026, according to the filing.

The lawsuit frames the case as a dispute over notice, process, and the legal basis the government used to remove her, rather than a direct challenge to DACA itself.

At the center of Estrada Juarez’s claims is an assertion that the government lacked a valid order that could support her removal in the manner described in the complaint.

The filing says no removal order was ever issued or served in connection with her deportation, and that she did not receive the kind of notice and hearing that would allow her to contest the government’s actions before an immigration judge.

Instead, the complaint says, the only document she received was a verification of physical removal that it calls false.

That paperwork, the suit says, claimed a prior order by an immigration judge and imposed a 10-year reentry bar.

Estrada Juarez disputes that prior-order claim, and the filing says she had never been in removal proceedings.

The complaint says she first learned of an alleged 1998 removal order during her arrest.

Her case also turns on how her most recent entry into the United States occurred, and what that means for the government’s ability to treat her as someone with a prior removal order that can be revived.

The lawsuit says her last U.S. entry was via advance parole, and argues that reinstatement of removal does not apply under INA regulations in her circumstances.

By framing the dispute that way, the filing puts advance parole and reinstatement questions alongside its due process claims about notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The suit presents those issues as linked: without a valid, served order and a chance to appear before an immigration judge, it says, the government acted unlawfully in carrying out her deportation.

Estrada Juarez’s lawyer, Stacy Tolchin, called the removal unlawful and said the case raised core due process principles.

“Maria’s deportation was unlawful and violated basic principles of due process. She had a valid DACA status, she appeared for her immigration appointment as instructed, and she should never have been removed from the country,” Tolchin said.

The lawsuit includes an emergency motion asking the government to facilitate Estrada Juarez’s return while the case proceeds.

That request seeks immediate action even as the broader lawsuit asks the court to find that the government violated due process when it removed her without notice of a lawful removal order and without allowing her to appear before an immigration judge.

The case has also moved quickly into the political arena, drawing congressional attention after her deportation and filing.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was among those expressing outrage, and state and local officials rallied in Sacramento demanding her return, according to the account of events tied to the lawsuit.

Members of Congress also noted conflicting DHS data on DACA recipient detentions and deportations, the report said.

The lawsuit positions Estrada Juarez as a person who followed instructions from immigration authorities, arrived for a scheduled USCIS interview connected to her green card process, and then ended up in custody and out of the country within days.

That sequence forms the factual backbone of a complaint that emphasizes procedure as much as outcome, pressing the court to focus on the steps the government took, the documents it provided, and the process it did not provide.

For Estrada Juarez, the central demand is return, not simply a declaration that the government acted unlawfully.

The complaint’s due process framing rests on what it describes as the absence of notice of any lawful removal order, and the lack of an opportunity to present her case to an immigration judge before her deportation.

The disputed “verification of physical removal” document described in the complaint matters in the suit because it is presented as the only paperwork she received, and as a record that asserted the existence of a prior immigration judge order and attached consequences such as a 10-year reentry bar.

The filing disputes the premise that she was subject to such an order, and it disputes the idea that reinstatement of removal could lawfully apply in her situation given what it says was her last U.S. entry on advance parole.

Tolchin’s statement also underscores another element the suit highlights: DACA status.

The complaint describes Estrada Juarez as holding active DACA status, which provides deportation protection, and says she nonetheless was detained at her USCIS appointment and deported.

The case arrives amid ongoing uncertainty over DACA litigation, a backdrop the account describes without casting the lawsuit as an attempt to rewrite the program’s broader legal footing.

Instead, the filing centers on individualized claims about due process, disputed paperwork, and whether the government had legal authority to treat her as subject to reinstatement of removal.

The situation is being characterized as among rare instances of a DACA recipient being deported under the Trump administration, set against that broader climate of ongoing DACA litigation uncertainties.

Even so, the complaint does not present itself as a program-wide challenge, and the report on the filing describes it as focused on individual due process violations.

The case’s emphasis on process places the spotlight on questions that often become decisive in immigration disputes: what the government must serve, what the government must prove, and what chance a person has to contest the government’s assertions before being removed.

Estrada Juarez’s complaint describes a scenario in which she says she learned of an alleged 1998 order only when she was arrested, and it disputes that she was ever placed in removal proceedings before that point.

It also describes a sharp contrast between appearing for a scheduled interview as instructed and then being detained and removed from the country within a short window.

The lawsuit’s emergency motion, by seeking government action to facilitate return pending resolution, aims to change her circumstances immediately while the court considers the legality of what happened.

As of March 11, 2026, no court rulings or government responses to the March 10 filing were reported.

Next steps now depend on what the government files in response and what the court orders after reviewing the complaint and the emergency motion seeking facilitation of her return.