CORDERO PELICO v. Kaiser
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-07286
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Cordero Pelico v. Kaiser, Judge Chen granted a temporary restraining order requiring release and barring re-detention without notice and a hearing.
The five detained petitioners and the federal immigration officials and agencies named as respondents.
What happened
In Jose Carlos Cordero Pelico v. Polly Kaiser, five noncitizens were arrested and detained by immigration officials after attending immigration court hearings. They argued that their detention violated the Fifth Amendment because they were not given a bond hearing beforehand. The government opposed their request, arguing that the petitioners were subject to mandatory detention and had no protected right to remain outside custody.
The court found that the petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that detention without a prior hearing violated procedural due process. It also found that continued detention could cause immediate and irreparable harm, while the public interest favored protecting constitutional rights.
Judge Edward M. Chen granted the temporary restraining order, as modified. The respondents had to immediately release the petitioners and could not re-detain them without notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The respondents also could not remove the petitioners from the United States. The order remained effective until September 12, 2025, and the respondents had to appear and explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
The detailed version
- CORDERO PELICO v. Kaiser · No. 3:25-cv-07286
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 29, 2025
Background
Five noncitizen petitioners filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and then sought a temporary restraining order. The petitioners included Jose Carlos Cordero Pelico, Adriana Patricia Lezcano Rondon, Fredy Andres Reyes Gonzales, and Jacqueline Karina Mendoza Nunez. The opinion identifies the petitioners as noncitizens and states that some were asylum seekers. They had initially been released into the community after immigration officials determined that they posed little or no flight risk or danger to the community. The petitioners alleged that they complied with the terms of their release and had no criminal history.
On August 28, 2025, the petitioners appeared in person for master calendar hearings in San Francisco Immigration Court. The government moved to dismiss its removal cases. Except in Nunez's case, the immigration judge did not immediately grant those motions, instead giving the petitioners time to respond and continuing the hearings. The petitioners alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested them immediately after they left the courtroom. They were being detained at 630 Sansome Street in San Francisco, California.
The petitioners argued that their arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Their claim was both substantive, because they argued the respondents lacked a valid reason to detain them, and procedural, because they allegedly received no bond hearing before detention. The respondents argued that the petitioners had not met the standard for temporary relief, were subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and lacked a legally protected liberty interest.
Legal standard
A temporary restraining order uses substantially the same standard as a preliminary injunction. The moving party must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a balance of hardships favoring relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. A temporary restraining order is extraordinary relief generally used to preserve the existing situation and prevent irreparable harm until a hearing can occur.
Court's analysis
The court concluded that the petitioners were likely to succeed on their procedural due process claim. It held that they had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and that the Due Process Clause entitled them to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before arrest or detention.
The court also found likely irreparable harm because detention without the required hearing could unlawfully deprive the petitioners of their liberty. The balance of hardships and the public interest likewise favored relief. The court reasoned that the public has a strong interest in protecting procedural safeguards against unlawful detention, while the government would face at most a short delay if it later showed by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent danger to the community or flight.
The court determined that immediate release was appropriate to restore the status quo—the last uncontested situation before the alleged unlawful detention. It also exercised its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to waive a bond because it found no realistic likelihood that the respondents would be harmed by the injunction.
Order
The court granted the petitioners' motion for a temporary restraining order, as modified, pending further briefing and a hearing. The respondents were ordered to immediately release the petitioners and were enjoined from re-detaining them without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The respondents were also enjoined from removing the petitioners from the United States. The order remained in effect until Friday, September 12, 2025.
The respondents had to provide a status report confirming the petitioners' release by August 30, 2025, at 3 p.m. They were also ordered to appear before Judge Edward M. Chen on September 11, 2025, to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The respondents' response was due September 5, and any reply was due September 9.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.