Castanon Domingo v. Kaiser

Background

Toribio Felipe Castanon Domingo filed a petition challenging his immigration detention and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order against Polly Kaiser, Todd M. Lyons, and Kristi Noem. The opinion identifies Kaiser as the Acting Field Office Director, Lyons as the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Noem as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Castanon Domingo was detained by immigration agents on July 14, 2025, during a scheduled interview, one day before his individual merits hearing in immigration court. The opinion states that he received no advance notice. According to a declaration submitted with his motion, an immigration officer told his lawyer that the stated reason for detention was Castanon Domingo’s 2019 conviction. The opinion also states that, after that conviction, immigration officials required no supervision, check-ins, or additional monitoring, and that the record showed no apparent material change in circumstances.

Castanon Domingo had previously been detained in 2013 under the immigration detention statute and then released on bond. He had been pursuing applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status. The opinion says he works as a cook in two restaurants, is his family’s primary financial provider, cares for his wife, and is the father of two United States citizens. One daughter has separation anxiety disorder that worsens when she is separated from him.

Legal standard

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction. The moving party generally must show a likely success on the merits, likely harm that cannot be repaired later, that the balance of hardships favors the requested relief, and that the relief serves the public interest. A lower showing—serious questions about the merits—may suffice when the balance of hardships sharply favors the moving party and the other requirements are met. Because the government was the opposing party, the balance-of-hardships and public-interest factors were considered together.

The court also found that the requirements for issuing an emergency order without advance notice were met because Castanon Domingo’s lawyer provided specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the government could respond.

Court’s analysis

The court found at least serious questions about whether due process required notice and a hearing before Castanon Domingo was taken back into immigration custody. The court relied on the liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment and on decisions recognizing that a person released from immigration custody on bond may have a protected interest in remaining out of custody.

Applying the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Castanon Domingo had a substantial private interest in remaining free to care for and support his family and to avoid the effects of separation on his daughter. A later bond hearing would not fully prevent the injury because he would already have experienced the allegedly improper detention.

The court also found a significant risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty. It reasoned that immigration detention must serve nonpunitive purposes related to preventing flight or danger to the community. Castanon Domingo had remained released for six years without supervision or additional conditions, and the opinion states that the record did not show that the conviction created a material change in circumstances. The government’s interest in detaining him without a prior hearing was therefore considered low, particularly because he had attended scheduled immigration interviews.

The court found likely immediate and irreparable harm from detention, including financial harm to Castanon Domingo’s family, harm related to his wife’s care, harm to his daughter, and interference with his ability to prepare for the scheduled immigration hearing and communicate with counsel. The court also found that the balance of hardships and the public interest sharply favored protection against potentially unlawful detention.

Order

Judge Rita F. Lin granted Castanon Domingo’s motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the prior situation while the matter receives further briefing and a hearing. The respondents were ordered to immediately release him from custody and were barred from detaining him again without notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The court did not require a bond or other security because it found little risk of harm to the government.

The order remains in effect until Friday, July 25, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The respondents must file a status report confirming release by July 15, 2025, and must respond to the motion by July 18. The court scheduled an in-person hearing for July 25, 2025, at which the respondents must explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The opinion grants temporary relief; it does not state a final decision on the underlying detention claim.