Yanyun Mo v. Christopher Chestnut, Warden, California City Correctional Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01789
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 YANYUN MO, No. 1:25-cv-01789 WBS CSK 13 Petitioner, 14 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 15 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, Warden, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER California City Correctional 16 Facility, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Before the court is petitioner Yanyun Mo’s motion for a 21 temporary restraining order, in which she asks to be released 22 from custody or provided an individualized hearing. (Docket No. 23 2 at 2.) 24 It is undisputed that petitioner entered the United 25 States illegally. The record indicates that she entered without 26 inspection on October 15, 2024, was given a credible fear 27 interview, was charged as inadmissible, and placed in removal 28 1 proceedings. (Docket No. 2-1 at 5.) She was then detained on 2 October 31, 2025, during an appointment with Immigration Customs 3 and Enforcement. (Id.) 4 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is 5 the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm't Ltd. v. 6 Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 7 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 8 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)). “A plaintiff seeking a 9 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 10 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable 11 harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 12 equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 13 public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 14 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The last two factors “merge when the 15 Government is the opposing party.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 16 435 (2009). 17 Likelihood of success on the merits is “the most 18 important factor in determining whether a preliminary injunction 19 is warranted.” Garcia v. County of Alameda, 150 F. 4th 1224, 20 1230 (9th Cir. 2025) (internal citations and quotation marks 21 omitted). “[P]laintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction face a 22 difficult task in proving that they are entitled to this 23 extraordinary remedy.” Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 24 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted). A mere 25 possibility of success is insufficient to satisfy this factor; 26 instead, a petitioner must demonstrate “a strong likelihood of 27 success on the merits.” Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 28 F. 3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). 1 Petitioner argues her detention violates due process 2 because she was not given notice and a pre-detention hearing. 3 (Docket No. 2-1 at 6-7.) Petitioner makes no claim that she was 4 denied substantive due process; the sole issue is whether 5 petitioner was denied procedural due process. 6 This court has now dealt with several petitions like 7 this one, in which it held that noncitizens present in the United 8 States who were never legally admitted were presumably 9 “applicants for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and thus 10 subject to mandatory detention. See, e.g., Alonzo v. Noem, No. 11 1:25-cv-01519 WBS SCR, 2025 WL 3208284, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 12 2025) (“The suggestion that petitioner may evade the designation 13 of ‘applicant for admission’ merely because he has already 14 entered the United States elides the fact that he was never 15 lawfully admitted.”); Valencia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01550 WBS 16 JDP, 2025 WL 3205133, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025) (same); 17 Xavier Oliveria v. Albarran, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01760 WBS AC, 18 2025 WL 3525923 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025) (same). 19 Petitioner presents neither facts nor arguments that 20 distinguish her case from these prior decisions. Accordingly, 21 the court again concludes that “the procedure authorized by 22 Congress” in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) constitutes procedural “due 23 process” as far as petitioner is concerned. Shaughnessy v. 24 United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); see also 25 Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2015) (for noncitizen 26 who “never technically ‘entered’ the United States,” “procedural 27 due process is simply whatever the procedure authorized by 28 Congress happens to be.” (citation modified)); Grigoryan v. Barr, eee nee enn nnn nnn EO I

1 959 F.3d 1233, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020) (same). And because 8 U.S.C. 2 §$ 1225(b6) does not “say[] anything whatsoever about bond 3 hearings,” petitioner is not entitled to one. Jennings v. 4 Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018). 5 Petitioner has been afforded the applicable process and 6 | has therefore failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on 7 the merits of her claim that additional process is due. That 8 being the case, the court “need not consider the other 9 [preliminary injunction] factors.” California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 10 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2018). 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for a 12 temporary restraining order (Docket No. 2) be, and the same 13 hereby is, DENIED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner wishes to have 15 a hearing on her motion for preliminary injunction, she shall 16 file all the papers necessary to support that motion no later 17 than December 23, 2025. The government shall file its opposition 18 no later than December 30, 2025. The court will then either set 19 the motion down for oral arguments or take the motion under 20 submission. . - ak a bean, (hi. 21 Dated: December 10, 2025 WILLIAMB.SHUBB ©. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 29 1 The court also notes that petitioner filed her motion 26 over a month after her detention. Such a delay in the context of a temporary restraining order request further supports denial, as 27 it suggests a lack of irreparable harm. See, e.g., Armstrong v. County of Placer, No. 21-cv-00779-KJM-KJIN, 2021 WL 2258716, at *4 28 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2021) (collecting cases).