Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Amornrit Siripan’s motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his re-detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The court found that Siripan was likely to succeed on claims that ICE failed to comply with applicable regulations governing revocation of supervised release, including requirements for a changed-circumstances determination and a prompt informal interview. The court ordered his immediate release, restrained respondents from re-arresting or re-detaining him absent compliance with constitutional and regulatory protections, waived a security bond, and ordered respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
Holdings
- For purposes of the temporary restraining order, Siripan demonstrated a likelihood of success on his claim that ICE violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) by revoking his release without evidence that, because of changed circumstances existing before re-detention, his removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- For purposes of the temporary restraining order, Siripan demonstrated a likelihood of success on his claim that ICE failed to provide the prompt informal interview required by 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i)(3) and 241.4(l)(1).
- All four Winter factors favored temporary injunctive relief, so the court granted Siripan's motion for a temporary restraining order.
- No security bond was required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
Questions Presented
- Whether Siripan was likely to succeed on his claim that ICE violated 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l) by revoking his release and re-detaining him without a documented changed-circumstances determination showing a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Whether Siripan was likely to succeed on his claim that ICE failed to provide the prompt informal interview required by 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i)(3) and 241.4(l)(1).
- Whether the four Winter factors supported issuance of a temporary restraining order.
- Whether a security bond should be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (34)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22 (2008)(followed)
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 745 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2024)(followed)
- Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 119 F. Supp. 3d 1177, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2015)(followed)
- Alva v. Kaiser, No. 25-cv-06676-RFL, 2025 WL 2419262, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025)(followed)
- Khamba v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01227-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 2959276, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025)(followed)
- Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144, 150 (D. Mass. 2025)(followed)
- Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 620 (1st Cir. 2023)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 34.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.