Awninderjit S. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Summary

The Eastern District of California granted Awninderjit S.’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his immigration detention. The court concluded that the petitioner was likely entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), and that his continued detention likely violated due process. The court ordered his immediate release, barred re-arrest or re-detention absent specified procedural protections, and issued an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction.

Holdings

1. For purposes of the TRO motion, Petitioner was likely to succeed in showing that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), governed his detention because he had been detained within the United States and was not an applicant seeking admission. Section 1226(a) entitled him to the procedures it provides, including at least an initial bond hearing.
2. For purposes of the TRO motion, Petitioner was likely to succeed on his claim that re-detention without notice or a custody hearing violated procedural due process. A noncitizen released pending removal proceedings may possess a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, and due process required a hearing to determine whether detention was warranted.
3. Petitioner satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order without notice because he showed a likelihood of success, irreparable harm from continued detention without a bond hearing, that the balance of equities favored him, and that relief served the public interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner was likely to succeed on his claim that his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and therefore required at least a bond hearing.
2. Whether Petitioner was likely to succeed on his Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim based on re-detention without notice or a custody hearing.
3. Whether Petitioner satisfied the four Winter factors for issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice.

Disposition

other