Jaraba Oliveros v. Kaiser

Background

Maria Jose Jaraba Oliveros filed a petition seeking review of her immigration detention and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. The named respondents were Acting Field Office Director Polly Kaiser, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd M. Lyons, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and United States Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

According to Oliveros’s complaint and declarations, she is a 21-year-old asylum seeker who fled Colombia. Federal agents briefly detained her after she entered the United States in December 2023, but released her after determining that she was not a flight risk or danger to the community. She later applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. She received work authorization and was hired as a housekeeper.

On August 22, 2025, Oliveros appeared in person at an immigration-court hearing in San Francisco. The government moved to dismiss her case so it could begin expedited-removal proceedings. The immigration judge did not rule on that motion and instead gave Oliveros an opportunity to respond, then transferred the venue to the immigration court in Martinez. Minutes after Oliveros left the courtroom, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested her and took her into custody. The opinion states that the agents did not present an arrest warrant or explain the arrest.

Oliveros alleged that detention was causing or threatening serious harm. The opinion describes her medical conditions as including pityriasis rosea requiring prescribed medication, chronic sinusitis causing respiratory issues, vertigo, panic, and obesity requiring careful nutrition. She also reported being held in a cold, enclosed metal room without a blanket.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard for a preliminary injunction, which it said is identical to the standard for a temporary restraining order. Generally, the person seeking this extraordinary relief must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors the person seeking relief, and that an injunction serves the public interest. The court also recognized a lower standard under which serious questions about the merits may support relief if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving party’s favor and the other requirements are met.

Because the government was the opposing party, the court treated the balance-of-hardships and public-interest factors together. The court also found that the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice were satisfied because specific facts showed that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the respondents could be heard. The opinion states that the respondents received at least four hours’ notice before the request was submitted and filed no response.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Oliveros had shown at least serious questions about the merits of her due-process claim. The Fifth Amendment protects liberty from deprivation without due process of law, and freedom from government custody or detention is a core liberty interest. The court relied on decisions recognizing that people released from immigration custody on bond may have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody on bond.

Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court concluded that Oliveros’s immediate release and a notice-and-hearing requirement were warranted before she could be taken back into custody. Her private interest in remaining out of custody included living at home, working, obtaining medical care, and providing for her family. The court found that a pre-detention hearing could reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty. It also found the government’s interest in re-detaining her without a hearing to be low, particularly because she had attended prior immigration hearings and had no criminal record, as stated in the opinion.

The court further found likely immediate and irreparable harm. It cited the medical risks of detention and the principle that deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury. The balance of hardships and public interest also favored Oliveros because procedural protections against unlawful detention serve the public interest, while the potential harm to the respondents from a short delay in detention was minimal.

Order

The court GRANTED Oliveros’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. The respondents were enjoined from transferring her out of the district and were ordered to immediately release her from custody. They were also enjoined and restrained from re-detaining her without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The order stated that it would remain in effect until September 5, 2025.

The court determined that no security or bond was required because the risk of harm to the government was minimal. The respondents were required to provide a status report confirming Oliveros’s release by August 26, 2025. They were also ordered to appear at an August 28, 2025, hearing and show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, with a response due by August 26, 2025.