US Court Orders Return of Indian Man Deported in Violation of Stay

(TEXAS) — A U.S. District Court in Texas declared Francisco D’Costa’s deportation unlawful under a stay of removal and ordered the government to promptly arrange his return, marking a rare confrontation between the judiciary and executive enforcement.

1) Summary of the court ruling

Judge Keith P. Ellison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled on January 9, 2026 that the federal government removed Francisco D’Costa in violation of the court’s stay.

The order framed the deportation as “unlawful and a violation of judicial authority,” rejecting the idea that intent determines whether the removal itself was lawful.

The remedy was direct. The court ordered the government to take immediate steps to bring D’Costa back to the United States and to explain—on a fast clock—how it would do so.

The ruling also signaled that courts will treat a judicial stay of removal as binding on executive agencies, even amid heightened enforcement activity.

2) Official statements and positions

Court filings from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acknowledged that D’Costa was removed despite the stay.

The government described the incident as an inadvertent mistake and an administrative error. That framing mattered, because the court drew a line between intent and effect: even an error can violate a court order.

The government also argued that return would be futile if D’Costa could participate in proceedings remotely from India. The claim reflects a broader tension in immigration litigation.

Remote participation may keep a case alive on paper, yet physical removal can change access to counsel, evidence gathering, and the practical ability to pursue relief.

A broader enforcement message appeared days later in public DHS messaging. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a separate announcement tied to immigration enforcement: “Under Secretary Noem, criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the United States. If you come to our country illegally and break our law, we will find you and we will arrest you.”

The statement was not issued as a case-specific release, but it illustrated the enforcement posture surrounding the period in which D’Costa was removed.

3) Key facts and timeline

Francisco D’Costa is an Indian national who has lived in the United States since 2009. His bid to remain in the country turned on a motion to reopen that cited changed country conditions and his conversion to Christianity, which he argued increased the risk of religious persecution if returned.

The key legal fact is procedural, not ideological. A judicial stay of removal bars removal unless and until the court lifts it.

For readers: what a stay of removal means in practice and how to monitor further developments in this case

A judicial stay of removal is a court order that pauses deportation while legal issues are reviewed. In many cases, families and counsel confirm the stay by checking court dockets and insisting the order is served on the U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE.

For ongoing developments, readers can monitor filings in D’Costa v. Warden of the Immigration Detention Facility, et al. (Case No. 4:25-cv-06177) and watch for DHS/ICE public statements issued through official channels.

4) Significance and policy impact

Few immigration cases produce an open collision between a federal judge’s command and an agency’s removal machinery. That is why the D’Costa ruling stands out.

The decision treated the stay of removal as an exercise of judicial power that agencies must honor in real time, not after the fact.

The opinion also tracks a line of Supreme Court thinking on stays and remedies. While the district court is not the Supreme Court, its approach aligns with the remedial logic commonly associated with Nken v. Holder—that a stay is meant to preserve the status quo and prevent harm that cannot be fixed later.

When the government removes someone in defiance of a stay, a court may view return as the only remedy that truly restores what the stay was designed to protect. (Readers can find the Supreme Court decision at law.cornell.edu.)

Due process concerns ran through the dispute. Deporting a person while a motion to reopen remains pending can, in many cases, weaken access to counsel and evidence and reduce a person’s practical ability to press statutory rights.

Remote participation may address some hearing logistics. It does not necessarily solve the on-the-ground barriers created by being forced abroad.

⚠️ Note that administrative errors do not excuse violations of a stay of removal; due process considerations are central to this ruling

5) Enforcement context and broader statistics

Pressure on removal operations formed the backdrop. The D’Costa deportation occurred during a period of intensified immigration enforcement, when agencies were publicly emphasizing arrests and removals.

DHS reported in December 2025 that the administration carried out over 605,000 deportations in the preceding year. Large numbers can strain coordination across detention sites, field offices, and counsel.

Even so, the court’s message was that volume does not relax a judicial stay of removal.

6) Impact on Francisco D’Costa and legal precedent

D’Costa remains in India while the government prepares a return plan. That posture creates an unusual form of limbo: a federal judge has ordered steps to restore the pre-removal position, yet the person at the center of the case is outside U.S. territory as agencies work out logistics.

Judge Ellison’s order imposed a tight accountability window. The government was given five days from January 9, 2026 to file a detailed repatriation strategy.

That deadline functioned as more than scheduling. It forced the executive branch to put concrete operational steps on the record, rather than rely on general assurances.

The dispute over “futility” also has broader meaning for immigration practice. Agencies sometimes point to remote hearings as a reason return is unnecessary. Courts may accept remote participation for certain proceedings.

Still, the D’Costa order signals that remote access is not automatically a substitute for compliance with a stay of removal.

For other immigrants and their counsel, the ruling is a warning and a roadmap. Courts may respond forcefully when a stay is violated, even if the government describes the breach as accidental.

The case also illustrates why lawyers often seek immediate, written proof that a stay has been served on the U.S. Attorney’s Office and ICE, and why courts may demand rapid reporting when a stay is ignored.

7) Official sources and case identifiers

The case is D’Costa v. Warden of the Immigration Detention Facility, et al. (Case No. 4:25-cv-06177), heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas before Judge Keith P. Ellison.

Background enforcement figures and public messaging referenced here were issued through DHS and ICE official communications, including statements attributed to DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin during January 2026 enforcement announcements.

The next concrete marker is procedural and time-bound: the court-ordered repatriation plan due January 9, 2026 (five days from ruling) sets the pace for what happens next in D’Costa’s return effort.

This article covers a legal case and current events; readers should consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance.

Information reflects official court documents and DHS/ICE statements available at the time of reporting.