1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DARIO SUAREZ SOTO, Case No. 3:26-cv-01700-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY 9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER
10 PAMELA BONDI, Re: Dkt. No. 2 Defendant. 11
12 13 Plaintiff Dario Suarez Soto filed this Administrative Procedure Act action and an Ex Parte 14 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against United States Attorney General Pamela 15 Bondi on February 26, 2026. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.1) Plaintiff ask this Court to: (1) issue an immediate 16 TRO postponing the effective date of the challenged PM25-02 Rescission of the Non-LPR (non- 17 lawful permanent resident) cancellation of removal expedite policy for 14 days as to Plaintiff only, 18 and (2) issue an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue to similarly 19 enjoin Defendant. (Dkt. No. 2.) For the following reasons, the TRO is GRANTED as modified 20 below. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff, who is originally from Mexico, has resided in the United States for over 30 years. 23 (Dkt. No. 1 a ¶ 20.) He has two United States citizen children, the youngest of which turn 21 on 24 March 2, 2026. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) Petitioner’s minor child experiences significant mental health 25 challenges, including Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent and moderate with anxious distress, 26 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (dissociative type). (Id. at ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 1 at 62.) Her treating 27 1 physicians emphasize that she is emotionally fragile, highly dependent on her father’s presence for 2 emotional regulation, and at risk of severe deterioration, including the recurrence of past suicidal 3 thoughts, should her father be removed. (Dkt. No. 2 at ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 1 at 73-74.) 4 Plaintiff is presently in removal proceedings before the San Francisco Immigration Court. 5 Plaintiff applied for non-LPR cancellation of removal, and his merits hearing occurred on January 6 25, 2023. At the hearing, the immigration judge indicated she intended to grant Plaintiff’s 7 application, but she was unable to do so immediately due to the statutory cap on the number of 8 cancellation applications that could be granted at that time. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 8, Espinzoa Decl. at ¶ 9 5 (ECF Page 77).) The immigration judge instructed Plaintiff’s counsel “to notify the Court six 10 months prior to N-S-A-’s twenty-first birthday so that the decision could be advanced. The Court 11 then issued an order designating the case as “on 42b reserved decision.” (Id.) On January 28, 12 2026, Plaintiff filed further evidence in support of his motion to advance the grant of his 13 application, which the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose. (Id. at ¶ 9.) On February 14 23, 2026, the newly-assigned immigration judge denied the motion. (Id.) 15 Plaintiff alleges the policy that enabled his motion (the “Expedite Age-Out Policy”) was 16 rescinded by an Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) Director’s Memorandum, PM 17 25-02, dated January 27, 2025. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 9.) See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212– 18 13 (2024) (describing the policy). Plaintiff also alleges the rescission was not accompanied by an 19 opportunity for notice and comment and no findings regarding reliance interests were made. (Dkt. 20 No. 1 ¶¶ 10, 28.) 21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to the 23 standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th 24 Cir. 2017). Thus, a party seeking a temporary restraining order must establish “[1] that he is likely 25 to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 26 preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in 27 the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 1 showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a preliminary injunction may still issue if 2 the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the other two Winter factors are 3 satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up) 4 (emphasis in original). “[W]hen the Government is the opposing party,” the final two factors 5 “merge.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). 6 An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may 7 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. 8 at 22. A “TRO ‘should be restricted to . . . preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable 9 harm just so long as is necessary to hold a [preliminary injunction] hearing, and no longer.’” E. 10 Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 779 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Granny Goose 11 Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). 12 DISCUSSION 13 As a preliminary matter, the Court finds the requirements for issuing a temporary 14 restraining order without notice set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) are met in this 15 case. Plaintiff’s counsel has set out specific facts in a declaration showing that immediate and 16 irreparable injury, loss, or damage may result before the adverse party can be heard in opposition. 17 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. No. 2-2.) Additionally, counsel states that she attempted to 18 contact the Civil Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of 19 California on February 26, 2026 and provided a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint and motion for a 20 TRO by email that same day. (Dkt. No. 2-2 a ¶¶ 1-2; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). 21 Plaintiff has demonstrated, at a minimum, serious legal questions on the merits of his claim 22 that the rescission violates the Administrative Procedure Act. See Garro Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25- 23 CV-05632-PCP, 2025 WL 3691938, at *21 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2025) (rejecting argument an APA 24 challenge requires evidence “that an agency action be formally promulgated” or “memorialized in 25 writing”). The rescission in question was made without notice or comment and without 26 “considering the acute reliance interests and consequences for the administration of justice, the 27 vulnerable population affected, or the ongoing representations that will be disrupted.” Am. 1 Plaintiff has a substantial interest in pursuing permanent residency and a likelihood of 2 irreparable injury in the absence of temporary relief. His child will turn 21 on March 2, 2026, at 3 which point he is no longer eligible for this form of relief and his application for cancellation of 4 removal necessarily would be denied. The irreversible loss of Plaintiff’s opportunity to obtain 5 lawful permanent resident status following more than three decades residing in this country 6 constitutes a severe harm, particularly when this may result in separation from his U.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DARIO SUAREZ SOTO, Case No. 3:26-cv-01700-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY 9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER
10 PAMELA BONDI, Re: Dkt. No. 2 Defendant. 11
12 13 Plaintiff Dario Suarez Soto filed this Administrative Procedure Act action and an Ex Parte 14 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against United States Attorney General Pamela 15 Bondi on February 26, 2026. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.1) Plaintiff ask this Court to: (1) issue an immediate 16 TRO postponing the effective date of the challenged PM25-02 Rescission of the Non-LPR (non- 17 lawful permanent resident) cancellation of removal expedite policy for 14 days as to Plaintiff only, 18 and (2) issue an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue to similarly 19 enjoin Defendant. (Dkt. No. 2.) For the following reasons, the TRO is GRANTED as modified 20 below. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff, who is originally from Mexico, has resided in the United States for over 30 years. 23 (Dkt. No. 1 a ¶ 20.) He has two United States citizen children, the youngest of which turn 21 on 24 March 2, 2026. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) Petitioner’s minor child experiences significant mental health 25 challenges, including Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent and moderate with anxious distress, 26 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (dissociative type). (Id. at ¶ 21; Dkt. No. 1 at 62.) Her treating 27 1 physicians emphasize that she is emotionally fragile, highly dependent on her father’s presence for 2 emotional regulation, and at risk of severe deterioration, including the recurrence of past suicidal 3 thoughts, should her father be removed. (Dkt. No. 2 at ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 1 at 73-74.) 4 Plaintiff is presently in removal proceedings before the San Francisco Immigration Court. 5 Plaintiff applied for non-LPR cancellation of removal, and his merits hearing occurred on January 6 25, 2023. At the hearing, the immigration judge indicated she intended to grant Plaintiff’s 7 application, but she was unable to do so immediately due to the statutory cap on the number of 8 cancellation applications that could be granted at that time. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 8, Espinzoa Decl. at ¶ 9 5 (ECF Page 77).) The immigration judge instructed Plaintiff’s counsel “to notify the Court six 10 months prior to N-S-A-’s twenty-first birthday so that the decision could be advanced. The Court 11 then issued an order designating the case as “on 42b reserved decision.” (Id.) On January 28, 12 2026, Plaintiff filed further evidence in support of his motion to advance the grant of his 13 application, which the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose. (Id. at ¶ 9.) On February 14 23, 2026, the newly-assigned immigration judge denied the motion. (Id.) 15 Plaintiff alleges the policy that enabled his motion (the “Expedite Age-Out Policy”) was 16 rescinded by an Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) Director’s Memorandum, PM 17 25-02, dated January 27, 2025. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 9.) See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212– 18 13 (2024) (describing the policy). Plaintiff also alleges the rescission was not accompanied by an 19 opportunity for notice and comment and no findings regarding reliance interests were made. (Dkt. 20 No. 1 ¶¶ 10, 28.) 21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to the 23 standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th 24 Cir. 2017). Thus, a party seeking a temporary restraining order must establish “[1] that he is likely 25 to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 26 preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in 27 the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 1 showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a preliminary injunction may still issue if 2 the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the other two Winter factors are 3 satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up) 4 (emphasis in original). “[W]hen the Government is the opposing party,” the final two factors 5 “merge.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). 6 An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may 7 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. 8 at 22. A “TRO ‘should be restricted to . . . preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable 9 harm just so long as is necessary to hold a [preliminary injunction] hearing, and no longer.’” E. 10 Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 779 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Granny Goose 11 Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). 12 DISCUSSION 13 As a preliminary matter, the Court finds the requirements for issuing a temporary 14 restraining order without notice set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) are met in this 15 case. Plaintiff’s counsel has set out specific facts in a declaration showing that immediate and 16 irreparable injury, loss, or damage may result before the adverse party can be heard in opposition. 17 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. No. 2-2.) Additionally, counsel states that she attempted to 18 contact the Civil Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of 19 California on February 26, 2026 and provided a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint and motion for a 20 TRO by email that same day. (Dkt. No. 2-2 a ¶¶ 1-2; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). 21 Plaintiff has demonstrated, at a minimum, serious legal questions on the merits of his claim 22 that the rescission violates the Administrative Procedure Act. See Garro Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25- 23 CV-05632-PCP, 2025 WL 3691938, at *21 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2025) (rejecting argument an APA 24 challenge requires evidence “that an agency action be formally promulgated” or “memorialized in 25 writing”). The rescission in question was made without notice or comment and without 26 “considering the acute reliance interests and consequences for the administration of justice, the 27 vulnerable population affected, or the ongoing representations that will be disrupted.” Am. 1 Plaintiff has a substantial interest in pursuing permanent residency and a likelihood of 2 irreparable injury in the absence of temporary relief. His child will turn 21 on March 2, 2026, at 3 which point he is no longer eligible for this form of relief and his application for cancellation of 4 removal necessarily would be denied. The irreversible loss of Plaintiff’s opportunity to obtain 5 lawful permanent resident status following more than three decades residing in this country 6 constitutes a severe harm, particularly when this may result in separation from his U.S. citizen 7 child who suffers from significant medical issues. See Sainz Reyes et al v. Bondi, No. 26-cv- 8 00664-YGR, Dkt. No. 7, Order Granting TRO, (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026). 9 The final two Winter factors, the balance of the equities and public interest, also weigh 10 heavily in favor of granting temporary relief. “There is generally no public interest in the 11 perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby, 838 12 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “To the contrary, there is a substantial public interest in having 13 governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations.” Id. 14 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1103 (6th Cir. 1994)). At 15 most, the government faces a short delay in applying the rescission of the policy against Plaintiff. 16 Faced with “a conflict between [administrative] concerns and preventable human suffering, [the 17 Court has] little difficulty concluding that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in [plaintiff’s] 18 favor.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 996 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Lopez v. Heckler, 713 19 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir. 1983)). 20 A TRO postponing the effective date of the rescission as applied to Plaintiff is appropriate 21 to return him to the status quo. The status quo refers to “the last uncontested status which preceded 22 the pending controversy.” Doe v. Noem, 778 F. Supp. 3d 1151, 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (quoting 23 GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1210 (9th Cir. 2000)). 24 Because Plaintiff satisfies all requirements for temporary injunctive relief and such relief is 25 necessary to restore the status quo, the TRO Motion is granted as detailed below. 26 CONCLUSION 27 For the reasons stated above, the TRO Motion is GRANTED and the PM25-02 Rescission ] injunction should not issue. Plaintiff shall immediately serve Defendant with a copy of this Order. 2 || Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiffs motion no later than March 6, 2026. Any reply shall 3 || be filed by 4:00 p.m. on March 10, 2026. A hearing shall be heard at 11:00 a.m. by Zoom on 4 March 12, 2026. The TRO remains in effect until 5:00 p.m. on March 13, 2026. 5 The parties may stipulate to an extended briefing schedule, provided the government 6 || agrees the TRO order may remain in effect through disposition of the preliminary injunction 7 || motion. 8 This Order disposes of Docket No. 2. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: February 27, 2026 1] ’ ie Sth D ae 5 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 13 United States District Judge
15 16
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28