Alva Alva v. Kaiser

Background

Juan Edelmar Alva Alva filed a petition challenging his immigration detention and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion says he entered the United States from Guatemala in 2018, was released under an order of supervision, complied with that supervision, received employment authorization, and had no criminal history. In 2023, he requested a reasonable fear interview as part of seeking relief from removal.

On August 6, 2025, Alva Alva attended the interview at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in San Francisco. He was told that the asylum officer found he had no reasonable fear and that he could seek review while detained. He was being held at the office, and an agent told his counsel that he might soon be transferred to another detention center.

Alva Alva argued that his arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He claimed both that the government lacked a valid basis for detention and that he had not received required procedures before being detained. He asked for immediate release and an order preventing transfer or deportation while the underlying proceedings continued.

Legal standard and analysis

A temporary restraining order uses the same standard as a preliminary injunction. The court considered whether Alva Alva was likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, whether the balance of harms favored him, and whether relief served the public interest. The court also found that the requirements for issuing an order without advance notice were met because counsel had provided specific facts showing that immediate harm could occur before the respondents could be heard.

The court found that Alva Alva had shown a likelihood of success on his procedural due process claim. It stated that the Due Process Clause entitled him to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before arrest or detention. The court also found that detention without a prior hearing was likely unconstitutional and that the resulting loss of liberty was an irreparable injury.

The court concluded that the balance of harms and the public interest also favored temporary relief. It reasoned that the government would face, at most, a short delay if it later showed by clear and convincing evidence that detention was needed to prevent danger to the community or flight. The court waived any bond requirement because it found no realistic likelihood that the respondents would suffer compensable harm from the order.

Order

The court granted Alva Alva’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. It ordered the respondents to immediately release him and barred them from re-detaining him without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. It also barred the respondents from removing him from the United States.

The order remained effective until Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 9:00 p.m. The respondents were ordered to provide a status report confirming release by August 9, 2025. They were also ordered to appear and show cause at a hearing on August 21, 2025, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The opinion did not finally resolve the habeas petition or state that a preliminary injunction had been issued.