Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California grants Monica Adriana Ruiz Yarleque’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order concerning her detention at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. The court holds that it has jurisdiction to consider her challenge to mandatory detention and concludes that she is likely to succeed in showing that she should be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits a bond hearing, rather than under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over petitioner's challenge to mandatory detention during removal proceedings.
- Whether 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9) channeled petitioner's detention and bond-hearing claims exclusively to a petition for review of a final removal order.
- Whether petitioner was likely to succeed in showing that her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), requiring an individualized bond hearing, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which provides for mandatory detention.
- Whether petitioner satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order.
- Whether the security-bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) should be waived.
Holdings
- Section 1252(g) did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction because petitioner challenged the extent and legality of detention during removal proceedings, not one of the three discrete actions covered by the statute: commencing proceedings, adjudicating cases, or executing removal orders.
- Sections 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9) did not bar habeas review of petitioner's collateral challenge to detention and denial of a bond hearing because she was not seeking review of a final removal order or the merits of her removability.
- Petitioner was likely to succeed on her claim that her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)'s discretionary detention scheme, rather than § 1225(b)'s mandatory-detention scheme, and therefore she was entitled to an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.
- Petitioner satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order because she showed a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from continued detention without a bond hearing, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief.
- The court waived the Rule 65(c) security-bond requirement.
Key quotations
“Section 1252(g) should be ready narrowly to apply “only to three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’”” (at 6)
“Sections 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) were intended to “channel judicial review over final orders of removal to the courts of appeals,” and not to “foreclose all judicial review of agency actions.”” (at 8)
“The Court finds that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims that she is unlawfully detained under Section 1225(b) and should instead be subject to Section 1226(a)’s discretionary detention scheme.” (at 10)
“The security bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived.” (at 15)
Factual background
Monica Adriana Ruiz Yarleque, a Peruvian citizen who had lived in California since 2002, was arrested by ICE on September 19, 2025, while attending a divorce-related court hearing. DHS placed her in removal proceedings and detained her at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. After an immigration judge denied her motion for bond on the ground of no jurisdiction, she sought habeas relief and a TRO, arguing that she was subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
Procedural history
Petitioner was detained by ICE after being placed in removal proceedings and was denied a bond hearing by an immigration judge, who determined that the immigration court had no jurisdiction. She filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition and an ex parte TRO application on October 27, 2025. Respondents opposed the application, petitioner replied, and the court held a hearing on October 31, 2025 before granting temporary relief.