Rafael Bustos-Alonso v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Rafael Bustos-Alonso’s motion for a preliminary injunction and lifted a previously issued temporary restraining order barring his removal. The court concluded that Bustos-Alonso had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or raised serious questions supporting relief, because the record did not establish that he was entitled to deferred action based on his U Visa application status. The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings, and the motion to extend the temporary restraining order was denied as moot.

Holdings

1. Petitioner was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because he failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits.
2. A Bona Fide Determination, without more, does not establish that Petitioner automatically receives deferred action.
3. The earlier inaccurate representations did not warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction after Respondents corrected the information and Petitioner offered no evidence disputing the corrected facts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner was likely to succeed on the merits or had raised serious questions warranting a preliminary injunction preventing his removal.
2. Whether receiving a Bona Fide Determination automatically entitled Petitioner to deferred action.
3. Whether the earlier inaccurate representations concerning Petitioner’s U Visa status warranted continuation of injunctive relief.

Disposition

other