Tiffany Sangster, et al. v. Marco Rubio, et al.

Opinion

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TIFFANY SANGSTER, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00447-ART-CSD 4 Plaintiffs, ORDER 5 v. (ECF NO. 9) 6 MARCO RUBIO, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 9 Plaintiffs Tiffany Sangster and Julie Muangala are adoptive mother and 10 daughter. They bring this action to compel the Department of State to adjudicate 11 Ms. Muangala’s application for an immigrant visa, and the visa application of 12 her sister, B.M., who is also Mrs. Sangster’s adoptive child. On January 28, 13 2026, Plaintiffs were granted a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) to compel 14 the Department of State (“the Department”) stay the effective date of its policy of 15 January 14, 2026 (“the Policy”), which indefinitely prevents the adjudication of 16 visas of nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”), among other 17 countries. The Court’s TRO order did not specify an end date for the TRO. 18 Plaintiffs now move to clarify that the TRO is indefinite, and in the alternative, 19 to extend it or convert it into a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 25.) Defendants 20 do not oppose. (Id.) The Court now grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to convert 21 the TRO into a preliminary injunction. 22 I. DISCUSSION 23 Courts have discretion to convert a temporary restraining order into a 24 preliminary injunction. See Hawai'i v. Trump, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1234–35 25 (D. Haw.) (vacated in part); Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1030, 1031 26 (N.D. Cal. 2025); see also Jimenez v. Barber, 252 F.2d 550, 554 (9th Cir. 1958) 27 (whether a TRO or a preliminary injunction should issue in the first instance is 28 within the discretion of the trial court). The circumstances justify an exercise of 2 injunction that lasts until the final entry of judgment. Conversion will clarify the 3 terms of the ordered relief without materially altering them. See ABX Air, Inc. v. 4 Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, No. 1:16-CV-1096, 2016 WL 7117388, at *5 (S.D. Ohio 5 Dec. 7, 2016). Conversion is also efficient, since the standard for issuing a 6 temporary restraining order is the same as for a preliminary injunction, and 7 Plaintiffs met that standard. Productive People, LLC v. Ives Design, No. CV-09- 8 1080-PHX-GMS, 2009 WL 1749751, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 18, 2009). Furthermore, 9 Defendants do not oppose the motion to convert. If another hearing were held on 10 the conversion, the Court would reach the same outcome. Id. 11 Nothing is lost by conversion, since the TRO could have been entered as a 12 preliminary injunction in the first instance and already operates as one. When 13 assessing whether a TRO can be construed as an appealable preliminary 14 injunction, the Ninth Circuit assesses whether it functions as a preliminary 15 injunction, looking to factors such as: whether an adversary hearing has been 16 held, whether the nonmovant strongly challenged the motion, whether the 17 duration of the TRO exceeds fourteen days, and whether the TRO has the 18 practical effect of a preliminary injunction. Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032, 19 1043–44 (9th Cir. 2025) (internal citations omitted). Here, the parties were 20 afforded notice, full briefing on the merits, and a hearing both prior to entry of 21 the TRO. While Rule 65 limits ex parte TROs to fourteen days unless extended, 22 this TRO was issued with notice and not limited to fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 65(b)(2). There is little practical or legal distinction between the TRO and a 24 preliminary injunction, and there is no reason not to change its name to avoid 25 any potential uncertainty about its duration. 26 The Court adopts and incorporates the reasoning and conclusions 27 contained in the prior order. (ECF No. 21.) 28 || II. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that the Temporary Restraining Order issued on 3 || January 28, 2026 (ECF No. 21.) is CONVERTED into a preliminary injunction 4 || prescribing the same relief, and that the ordered relief will remain in place until 5 || the final entry of judgment. 6 It is furthermore ordered that Plaintiffs will FILE a status update to advise 7 || the court of the outcome of Julie Muangala and B.M.’s interviews within seven 8 || days of those interviews. 9 DATED: March 31, 2026 10 en 12 ANNER.TRAUM =———.—C □□□□□ 1B UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28