1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTHA R. M.,
12 Petitioner, No. 1:25-cv-01912-TLN-CKD
13 14 v. ORDER CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., 15 Respondents. 16
17 18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Martha R.M.’s1 (“Petitioner”) Ex-Parte 19 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons set forth 20 below, Petitioner’s Motion is GRANTED. 21 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is a 51-year-old native and citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States 23 since February 14, 1998. (ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 15, 20.) She and her husband operate their own 24 1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of 25 the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court omits Petitioner’s full name, using only his first name and last initials, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum Re: 26 Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court 27 Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. The Clerk of Court 28 is directed to update the docket to reflect this change accordingly. 1 business, which employs dozens of people, and Petitioner has an approved employment 2 authorization through March 11, 2029. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 25; ECF No. 7-2 at 7.) Petitioner has three 3 children all of whom are United States citizens. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 25.) Petitioner also has seven 4 siblings in the United States all of whom are either United States citizens or lawful permanent 5 residents. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 25.) Petitioner has no criminal history. (Id. ¶ 26.) 6 Petitioner entered the United States without inspection more than twenty-five years ago 7 and has not left the country since. (Id. ¶ 20; ECF No. 7-1 at 7.) On October 27, 2022, Petitioner 8 and her husband filed applications for Adjustment of Status to become lawful permanent residents 9 under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). (ECF No. 7-1 at 7.) On October 28, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and 10 Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued notices to Petitioner and her husband scheduling them to 11 appear for an interview for their applications for Adjustment of Status on December 2, 2025 at the 12 USCIS San Francisco Field Office. (Id. at 8; ECF No. 7-2 at 3.) Petitioner, her husband, and 13 their attorney attended the interview. (ECF No. 7-1 at 8.) At the end of the interview, Petitioner 14 and her husband were arrested by Immigration and Custody Enforcement (“ICE”) agents. (Id.) 15 Their applications for Adjustment of Status remain pending. (Id.) 16 At the time of their arrest or shortly thereafter, ICE agents prepared a warrant for 17 Petitioner’s arrest. (ECF No. 7-2 at 8.) The warrant indicated there was “probable cause” to 18 believe Petitioner was removable from the United States based in part upon the “pendency of 19 ongoing removal proceedings against” Petitioner. (Id.) Petitioner represents there were no 20 removal proceedings pending at the time the warrant was executed. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 23.) Instead, 21 Petitioner states the removal proceedings were not initiated until December 15, 2025 –– thirteen 22 days after Petitioner was detained. (Id.) 23 On December 17, 2025, an immigration judge denied Petitioner bond in light of the 24 government’s new interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) and Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 25 216 (BIA 2025). (ECF No. 7-2 at 10–11.) 26 Petitioner remains in custody at the California City Correctional Facility in California 27 City, California. (ECF No. 7-1 at 8.) Since Petitioner’s detention, she has been separated from 28 her three children and her eldest, aged nineteen, has been responsible for the care of his younger 1 siblings and the management of the family business. (ECF No. 7-3 ¶ 5.) Petitioner now 2 challenges the constitutionality of her detention and seeks immediate release. (ECF No. 7.) 3 II. STANDARD OF LAW 4 For a TRO, courts consider whether a petitioner has established: “[1] that he is likely to 5 succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 6 relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public 7 interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Petitioner must “make a 8 showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 9 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In evaluating a petitioner’s motion, a district court may weigh 10 petitioner’s showings on the Winter elements using a sliding-scale approach. Id. A stronger 11 showing on the balance of the hardships may support issuing a TRO even where the petitioner 12 shows that there are “serious questions on the merits . . . so long as the [petitioner] also shows 13 that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. 14 Simply put, a petitioner must demonstrate, “that [if] serious questions going to the merits were 15 raised [then] the balance of hardships [must] tip[ ] sharply” in petitioner’s favor in order to 16 succeed in a request for a TRO. Id. at 1134–35. 17 III. ANALYSIS2 18 A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 19 Petitioner has established a likelihood of success on her claim that she is unlawfully 20 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (“§ 1225(b)(2)”).3 Section 1225(b)(2) mandates detention 21 during removal proceedings for applicants “seeking admission” and does not provide for a bond 22
23 2 The Court finds Petitioner has met the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Petitioner has filed the requisite affidavits and 24 notified Respondents via email on December 22, 2025 that she would be filing the motion. (ECF No. 7-3 ¶ 6.) See R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617255, 25 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025) (similarly finding requirements for TRO were met without notice); Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-cv-05632-RML, 2025 WL 1853763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 4, 2025) 26 (same). 27 3 As such, the Court does not address Petitioner’s separate argument that her arrest at her 28 adjustment interview was a violation of the INA. (ECF No. 7-1 at 9.) 1 hearing. Whereas 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (“§ 1226(a)”) “provides the general process for arresting 2 and detaining [noncitizens] who are present in the United States and eligible for removal.” 3 Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022). Under § 1226(a), the 4 Government has broad discretion whether to release or detain the individual. Id. Further, § 5 1226(a) provides several layers of review for an initial custody determination. Id. It also confers 6 “an initial bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, the opportunity to be represented by 7 counsel and to present evidence, the right to appeal, and the right to seek a new hearing when 8 circumstances materially change.” Id. at 1202. 9 Petitioner claims the text, context, legislative and statutory history of the INA all 10 demonstrate that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs her detention –– not 8 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTHA R. M.,
12 Petitioner, No. 1:25-cv-01912-TLN-CKD
13 14 v. ORDER CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., 15 Respondents. 16
17 18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Martha R.M.’s1 (“Petitioner”) Ex-Parte 19 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons set forth 20 below, Petitioner’s Motion is GRANTED. 21 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is a 51-year-old native and citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States 23 since February 14, 1998. (ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 15, 20.) She and her husband operate their own 24 1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of 25 the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court omits Petitioner’s full name, using only his first name and last initials, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum Re: 26 Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court 27 Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. The Clerk of Court 28 is directed to update the docket to reflect this change accordingly. 1 business, which employs dozens of people, and Petitioner has an approved employment 2 authorization through March 11, 2029. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 25; ECF No. 7-2 at 7.) Petitioner has three 3 children all of whom are United States citizens. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 25.) Petitioner also has seven 4 siblings in the United States all of whom are either United States citizens or lawful permanent 5 residents. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 25.) Petitioner has no criminal history. (Id. ¶ 26.) 6 Petitioner entered the United States without inspection more than twenty-five years ago 7 and has not left the country since. (Id. ¶ 20; ECF No. 7-1 at 7.) On October 27, 2022, Petitioner 8 and her husband filed applications for Adjustment of Status to become lawful permanent residents 9 under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). (ECF No. 7-1 at 7.) On October 28, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and 10 Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued notices to Petitioner and her husband scheduling them to 11 appear for an interview for their applications for Adjustment of Status on December 2, 2025 at the 12 USCIS San Francisco Field Office. (Id. at 8; ECF No. 7-2 at 3.) Petitioner, her husband, and 13 their attorney attended the interview. (ECF No. 7-1 at 8.) At the end of the interview, Petitioner 14 and her husband were arrested by Immigration and Custody Enforcement (“ICE”) agents. (Id.) 15 Their applications for Adjustment of Status remain pending. (Id.) 16 At the time of their arrest or shortly thereafter, ICE agents prepared a warrant for 17 Petitioner’s arrest. (ECF No. 7-2 at 8.) The warrant indicated there was “probable cause” to 18 believe Petitioner was removable from the United States based in part upon the “pendency of 19 ongoing removal proceedings against” Petitioner. (Id.) Petitioner represents there were no 20 removal proceedings pending at the time the warrant was executed. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 23.) Instead, 21 Petitioner states the removal proceedings were not initiated until December 15, 2025 –– thirteen 22 days after Petitioner was detained. (Id.) 23 On December 17, 2025, an immigration judge denied Petitioner bond in light of the 24 government’s new interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) and Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 25 216 (BIA 2025). (ECF No. 7-2 at 10–11.) 26 Petitioner remains in custody at the California City Correctional Facility in California 27 City, California. (ECF No. 7-1 at 8.) Since Petitioner’s detention, she has been separated from 28 her three children and her eldest, aged nineteen, has been responsible for the care of his younger 1 siblings and the management of the family business. (ECF No. 7-3 ¶ 5.) Petitioner now 2 challenges the constitutionality of her detention and seeks immediate release. (ECF No. 7.) 3 II. STANDARD OF LAW 4 For a TRO, courts consider whether a petitioner has established: “[1] that he is likely to 5 succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 6 relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public 7 interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Petitioner must “make a 8 showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 9 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In evaluating a petitioner’s motion, a district court may weigh 10 petitioner’s showings on the Winter elements using a sliding-scale approach. Id. A stronger 11 showing on the balance of the hardships may support issuing a TRO even where the petitioner 12 shows that there are “serious questions on the merits . . . so long as the [petitioner] also shows 13 that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. 14 Simply put, a petitioner must demonstrate, “that [if] serious questions going to the merits were 15 raised [then] the balance of hardships [must] tip[ ] sharply” in petitioner’s favor in order to 16 succeed in a request for a TRO. Id. at 1134–35. 17 III. ANALYSIS2 18 A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 19 Petitioner has established a likelihood of success on her claim that she is unlawfully 20 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (“§ 1225(b)(2)”).3 Section 1225(b)(2) mandates detention 21 during removal proceedings for applicants “seeking admission” and does not provide for a bond 22
23 2 The Court finds Petitioner has met the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Petitioner has filed the requisite affidavits and 24 notified Respondents via email on December 22, 2025 that she would be filing the motion. (ECF No. 7-3 ¶ 6.) See R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617255, 25 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025) (similarly finding requirements for TRO were met without notice); Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-cv-05632-RML, 2025 WL 1853763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 4, 2025) 26 (same). 27 3 As such, the Court does not address Petitioner’s separate argument that her arrest at her 28 adjustment interview was a violation of the INA. (ECF No. 7-1 at 9.) 1 hearing. Whereas 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (“§ 1226(a)”) “provides the general process for arresting 2 and detaining [noncitizens] who are present in the United States and eligible for removal.” 3 Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022). Under § 1226(a), the 4 Government has broad discretion whether to release or detain the individual. Id. Further, § 5 1226(a) provides several layers of review for an initial custody determination. Id. It also confers 6 “an initial bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, the opportunity to be represented by 7 counsel and to present evidence, the right to appeal, and the right to seek a new hearing when 8 circumstances materially change.” Id. at 1202. 9 Petitioner claims the text, context, legislative and statutory history of the INA all 10 demonstrate that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs her detention –– not 8 U.S.C. § 1225. (ECF No. 7-1 11 at 11.) The Court agrees. As this Court has found repeatedly, Section 1225(b)(2) applies only to 12 noncitizens “seeking admission” –– a category that does not include noncitizens like Petitioner 13 who have lived within the United States for over twenty-five years. See Morales-Flores v. Lyons, 14 No. 1:25-CV-01640-TLN-EFB, 2025 WL 3552841, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2025) (explaining 15 this Court’s reasons for taking this position). Absent a higher court order holding otherwise, this 16 Court finds Petitioner is not an applicant “seeking admission” subject to mandatory detention 17 under § 1225(b)(2). Petitioner is instead subject to § 1226(a) and is therefore entitled to the 18 process that statute requires, including a bond hearing at a minimum. Accordingly, Petitioner is 19 likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that Respondents have violated the INA and 20 improperly subjected her to mandatory detention without a hearing. 21 B. Irreparable Harm 22 Petitioner has also established she will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO. 23 The Ninth Circuit recognizes “irreparable harms imposed on anyone subject to immigration 24 detention,” including “the economic burdens imposed on detainees and their families as a result 25 of detention[.]” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 995. Such harm is present here. Petitioner is currently 26 separated from her family, including her three children. Her eldest, nineteen-years-old, is caring 27 for his siblings while also running the family business in Petitioner’s absence. This factor is met. 28 /// 1 C. Balance of Equities and Public Interest 2 As to the final two Winter factors, “[w]hen the government is a party, the analysis of the 3 balance of the hardships and the public interest merge.” Nat’l Urban League v. Ross, 484 F. 4 Supp. 3d 802, 807 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 5 (9th Cir. 2014)). The Court finds these factors also favor Petitioner. First, the balance of equities 6 tips decidedly in Petitioner’s favor as the Government “cannot reasonably assert that it is harmed 7 in any legally cognizable sense by being enjoined from constitutional violations.” Zepeda v. U.S. 8 Immigr. & Nat. Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). Second, “it is always in the public 9 interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002. 10 Moreover, “the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the costs to the public of immigration detention 11 are staggering.” Diaz v. Kaiser, No. 3:25-CV-05071, 2025 WL 1676854, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 12 14, 2025) (internal citation omitted). 13 In sum, these last two factors weigh in Petitioner’s favor. Therefore, the Court GRANTS 14 Petitioner’s Motion for a TRO. (ECF No. 7.) 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 17 1. Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. 18 2. Respondents must IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner Martha R. M. from custody. 19 Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on her, unless such restrictions 20 are determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. 21 3. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining 22 Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days’ notice 23 and a pre-deprivation/custody hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, where the 24 Government shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 25 Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk, and Petitioner shall be allowed 26 to have her counsel present. 27 4. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not issue a 28 preliminary injunction continuing this order. Respondents shall file responsive papers by 1 Tuesday, December 30, 2025. Petitioner may file a reply, if any, by Monday, January 2 5, 2026. The parties shall indicate in their briefing whether they waive hearing. Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 65(b)(3). The Court will consider any stipulation and proposed order filed by 4 the parties if they agree to a less demanding briefing schedule. 5 5. Petitioner is ORDERED to immediately serve this Temporary Restraining Order and 6 Order to Show Cause on Respondents at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. Petitioner 7 shall file proof of such service no later than 9 a.m. on December 24, 2025. 8 6. Respondents are hereby notified of their right to apply to the Court for modification or 9 dissolution of the Temporary Restraining Order on two days’ notice or such shorter notice 10 as the Court may allow. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(4). 11 7. The bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 12 regularly waive security in cases like this one. See Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1015 13 (9th Cir. 2011). 14 8. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to only list Petitioner’s first name 15 and last initial. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Date: December 23, 2025 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28