A federal judge stated on Monday he was “troubled” by allegations that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was planning to transfer a man in custody outside of Colorado to an unknown location.

Two years ago, Dennis Arostegui-Maldonado won a favorable ruling in his immigration case from the Denver-based federal appeals court. Subsequently, he received an order protecting him from deportation to his countries of citizenship under the under the Convention Against Torture.

But in seeking a temporary restraining order last week, Arostegui-Maldonado’s lawyers alleged ICE was planning to move him out of the Aurora detention facility. Days later, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez directed the government to keep Arostegui-Maldonado in Colorado, citing his own lack of knowledge about where ICE intended to take Arostegui-Maldonado.

“Notwithstanding that it appears ICE has, for the time being, suspended its efforts to transfer Maldonado, the Court is troubled by the unknown question as to where ICE was intending to transfer Maldonado,” Martínez wrote in a July 21 order, adding that it would be unclear if he would retain jurisdiction over the case in the event of a transfer.

“In light of this uncertainty,” he continued, “the Court determines it is necessary to enjoin Maldonado’s transfer out of the District of Colorado until such time as the Court can hold a hearing.”

Martínez’s comments mirror concerns nationally about people who are unable to be located after ICE takes them into custody. In March, the ACLU of New Mexico filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security calling for an investigation into 48 unnamed residents “forcibly disappeared” after a week-long operation. The Miami Herald reported in April that a Texas man’s whereabouts were unknown for more than 40 days until the government disclosed it had removed him to El Salvador.

Recently, other judges in Colorado have indicated their worries about ICE removals of detainees before they can have their cases heard by a judge. The same day as Martínez’s order, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico ordered the government to respond to allegations ICE had moved a man to Wyoming in violation of a temporary restraining order.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, in barring the government from removing alleged “alien enemies” pursuant to a presidential proclamation, referenced the “tremendous risk of extreme physical harm” detainees may suffer in the event the government removes them to El Salvador’s abusive CECOT prison.

Because of the federal rules governing immigration cases, the vast majority of Arostegui-Maldonado’s proceedings is shielded from public view. However, Martínez’s temporary restraining order and the prior decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit gave a fuller picture of Arostegui-Maldonado’s circumstances.

Arostegui-Maldonado testified in his immigration proceedings that Costa Rican police officers kidnapped him at gunpoint and took him to an isolated location. They beat him and sexually assaulted him, demanding he sell drugs on their behalf. They also threatened to kill him if he made a report, and they gained access to his family’s contact information. Finally, the officers transported him to jail and held him for 24 hours without any criminal charge.

An immigration judge found him credible, but ultimately denied protection from deportation. Specifically, the judge decided Arostegui-Maldonado had not shown the police who tortured him were acting as government agents at the time.

The 10th Circuit found the judge’s interpretation “defies logic and the law.” This May, Arostegui-Maldonado obtained an order protecting him from deportation to Costa Rica and El Salvador.

However, on July 18 his lawyers learned ICE intended to move him. Allegedly, the government told Arostegui-Maldonado’s attorneys it would not transfer him, but did not rule out the possibility for the future. Arostegui-Maldonado stated ICE had halted their process of transferring him for now.

Martínez, in response, temporarily blocked the removal while scheduling a hearing for a longer-term injunction on Aug. 1.

“The Court emphasizes that there appears at this time to be no prejudice to the government by temporarily maintaining the status quo,” he wrote.

The case is Arostegui-Maldonado v. Baltazar.