Jorge Angel Bello Lao v. El Paso Processing Center

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: February 6, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00293
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

JORGE ANGEL BELLO LAO, § § Petitioner, § § v. § No. 3:26-CV-00293-LS § EL PASO PROCESSING CENTER, § § Respondent. §

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Pro se Petitioner Jorge Angel Bello Lao moves for a temporary restraining order and immediate release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. The Court has discretion to grant or deny a preliminary injunction based on four elements1: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.2

However, “[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction [or temporary restraining order] is not to give the plaintiff the ultimate relief it seeks.”3 Instead, it “is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury until the court renders a decision on the merits.”4 Petitioner’s motions seek, in part, release from custody, which cannot be the subject of a TRO because release is the ultimate relief Petitioner seeks in this lawsuit. Petitioner’s remaining requests for relief concern the location and conditions of confinement, but “habeas is not available

1 Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1984). 2 Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). 3 WarnerVision Ent. Inc. v. Empire of Carolina, Inc., 101 F.3d 259, 261 (2d Cir. 1996). 4 Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 21-11159, 2022 WL 486610, at *4 (5th Cir. 2022). to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention.” Finally, “removal alone cannot constitute the requisite irreparable injury,’” and the petition’s legal arguments are insufficient to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motions for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 4] and immediate release [ECF No. 3]. SO ORDERED. SIGNED and ENTERED on February 6, 2026.

LEON SCHYDLOWER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

> Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935 (Sth Cir. 1976); see also Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248, 249 (Sth Cir. 1979) (“[T]he sole function of habeas corpus is to provide relief from [u|nlawful imprisonment or custody, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.”). Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (5th Cir. 2009).