VALENCIA ZAPATA v. Kaiser

Background

The petitioners were Gerardo Roman Valencia Zapata, David Rafael Colon Solano, Keymaris Alvarez Miranda, and Gabriela Alondra Vargas Plasencia. The opinion describes them as four non-citizens who fled countries in South America and had pending applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

On September 4, 2025, each petitioner attended a master calendar hearing in the San Francisco Immigration Court. At each hearing, a Department of Homeland Security attorney asked to dismiss the petitioner’s immigration case. The immigration judge did not grant those requests, instead giving each petitioner 30 days to respond and setting another hearing date. After leaving court, each petitioner was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and taken into custody. The petitioners said they were not given reasons or explanations for their detention. According to their petition, they had no criminal history and had complied with their Immigration and Customs Enforcement and immigration-court obligations.

Before these arrests, the opinion states, immigration officials had released the petitioners on their own recognizance after determining that they posed little risk of flight or danger to the community. The petitioners filed a habeas petition and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order on September 4, 2025. A temporary restraining order is short-term emergency relief intended to prevent immediate harm while the court considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction.

Legal standard

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction. The petitioners had to show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of hardships favored them, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also explained that relief may be available when there are serious questions about the merits, the balance of hardships sharply favors the petitioners, 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 advance notice were met because counsel submitted specific facts showing possible immediate and irreparable harm and had attempted to notify government counsel.

Court’s analysis

The petitioners argued that their arrests and detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The court found at least serious questions about whether people previously released from immigration custody have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody on bond and whether due process requires notice and a hearing before they are taken back into custody.

Applying the factors from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that the petitioners had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody. It reasoned that a later bond hearing would not prevent the harm of an allegedly improper detention that had already occurred. The court also found a significant risk of an erroneous deprivation because Immigration and Customs Enforcement had previously determined that the petitioners posed little risk of flight or danger, and the government had not communicated a basis for the new arrests tied to those concerns. The court viewed the government’s interest in re-detaining the petitioners without a hearing as low under the circumstances described in the opinion.

The court further found likely irreparable harm from the alleged deprivation of liberty. It concluded that the balance of hardships and public interest sharply favored the petitioners because the public has an interest in procedural protections against unlawful detention, while the government’s potential harm from a short delay in detention was limited.

Order

The court granted the petitioners’ ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo. It ordered the respondents to immediately release the petitioners from custody and prohibited them from re-detaining the petitioners for any purpose, including removing them from the United States, without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.

The order was to remain in effect through Friday, September 19, 2025. The court ordered the respondents to provide a status report confirming release by September 8, 2025, and to appear at a September 18, 2025 hearing to show why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The court did not finally resolve the habeas petition or decide whether a preliminary injunction would issue. It also exercised its discretion not to require the petitioners to post a bond.