Sharon Ngebi Ngonganang v. US Immigration & Customs Enforcement

W.D. Louisiana

Sharon Ngebi Ngonganang v. US Immigration & Customs Enforcement

District Court, W.D. Louisiana·Decided May 11, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-01522·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION SHARON NGEBI NGONGANANG CASE NO. 6:26-CV-01522 VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS US IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES ENFORCEMENT

ORDER Before the Court is “A Request for a Temporary Restraining Order” [ECF No. 2] filed by pro se Petitioner Sharon Ngebi Ngonganang. Based on the record, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the requisite showings for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The motion is therefore DENIED. Petitioner seeks an order prohibiting her removal during the pendency of her “asylum case.”! According to Petitioner’s motion, however, the Immigration Judge denied her request for asylum on August 18, 2025, and her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was denied on January 30, 2026.” Petitioner’s motion to reopen her case was also denied by the BIA on May 5, 2026.7 Temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary relief and rarely issued.”* To obtain injunctive relief, a movant must establish: “(1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury

No. 2 at 4. 2 Id. at 3. 3 Td. at 4. Albright v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.Supp.2d 523, 532 (E.D. La. 1999).

outweighs any harm that will result to the non-movant if the injunction is granted; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Having reviewed the filings, the docket in this case, and the relevant law, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim challenging her removal. Specifically, she appears to have exhausted her appeals in the immigration court and states no other legal basis for enjoining her removal. Accordingly, the request is DENIED. THUS DONE in Chambers on this 11th day of May, 2026.

□

ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD

> Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 582 (Sth Cir. 2013).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION SHARON NGEBI NGONGANANG CASE NO. 6:26-CV-01522 VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS US IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES ENFORCEMENT

ORDER Before the Court is “A Request for a Temporary Restraining Order” [ECF No. 2] filed by pro se Petitioner Sharon Ngebi Ngonganang. Based on the record, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the requisite showings for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The motion is therefore DENIED. Petitioner seeks an order prohibiting her removal during the pendency of her “asylum case.”! According to Petitioner’s motion, however, the Immigration Judge denied her request for asylum on August 18, 2025, and her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was denied on January 30, 2026.” Petitioner’s motion to reopen her case was also denied by the BIA on May 5, 2026.7 Temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary relief and rarely issued.”* To obtain injunctive relief, a movant must establish: “(1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury

No. 2 at 4. 2 Id. at 3. 3 Td. at 4. Albright v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.Supp.2d 523, 532 (E.D. La. 1999).

outweighs any harm that will result to the non-movant if the injunction is granted; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Having reviewed the filings, the docket in this case, and the relevant law, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim challenging her removal. Specifically, she appears to have exhausted her appeals in the immigration court and states no other legal basis for enjoining her removal. Accordingly, the request is DENIED. THUS DONE in Chambers on this 11th day of May, 2026.

□

ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD

> Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 582 (Sth Cir. 2013).

Sharon Ngebi Ngonganang v. US Immigration & Customs Enforcement, (W.D. La. 2026).

Pincite

Sharon Ngebi Ngonganang v. US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (Sharon Ngebi Ngonganang v. US Immigration & Customs Enforcement) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related