Acosta Roa v. Official Fulfilling the Duties of Field Office Director
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:25-cv-07802
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Acosta Roa v. Official Fulfilling the Duties of Field Office Director, Judge Seeborg granted a temporary restraining order requiring release and pre-detention hearings.
The order affected the eight petitioners, who were ordered released from custody, and the government respondents, who were barred from re-detaining or removing them without the conditions stated in the order.
What happened
In Acosta Roa v. Official Fulfilling the Duties of Field Office Director, eight people with pending immigration protection applications were arrested after immigration-court hearings and held in custody. They argued that their detention violated the Fifth Amendment because they had not received bond hearings before detention.
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 threatened immediate, serious harm and that the public interest and balance of hardships favored temporary relief.
Judge Seeborg granted the temporary restraining order. He ordered the government to release the petitioners immediately and barred their re-detention without notice and a hearing before a neutral decision maker, as well as their removal from the United States. The order was set to remain in effect until September 26, 2025, unless changed by the court.
The detailed version
- Acosta Roa v. Official Fulfilling the Duties of Field Office Director · No. 3:25-cv-07802
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 12, 2025
Background
The eight petitioners—Saul Hernando Acosta Roa, Cristian Alberto Cedeno Correa, Diana Sofia Cuadros Carreno, Geni Viviana Henao Zambrano, Yeison Fabiany Garcia Hurtatis, Yina Paola Hoyos Carvajal, Jenyffer Karina Pabon Jimenez, and Andres Felipe Restrepo Motta—had pending applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. They appeared on September 12, 2025, for preliminary hearings before an immigration judge.
According to the petitioners, the government orally moved to dismiss each case to place them in expedited-removal proceedings. The immigration judge did not rule on those motions and gave each petitioner additional time to respond. Department of Homeland Security agents then arrested the petitioners as they left the courthouse. They were being held at 630 Sansome Street in San Francisco.
The petitioners stated that they had entered the United States in 2023, had been released into the community after being apprehended at the border, and had complied with their immigration and enforcement obligations. Each alleged having no criminal history, except that one petitioner acknowledged a prior arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence but said she was never charged. They filed a joint petition seeking release and a temporary restraining order against the listed government defendants.
Legal standard
The court applied the standard for a temporary restraining order, which is substantially the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. The petitioners had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of hardships favored them, and that relief served the public interest. Because the government was the opposing party, the court treated the last two factors together.
The court also explained that a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to preserving the existing situation and preventing irreparable harm until a hearing on preliminary relief.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that their ongoing detention violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. It concluded that they had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and that the Due Process Clause required a bond hearing before an immigration judge before their arrest or detention.
The court also found likely irreparable harm because the petitioners faced an immediate loss of liberty and a likely unconstitutional detention without a hearing. It determined that the balance of hardships and public interest strongly favored relief because the petitioners faced significant harm, while the government would face at most a short delay in detention if it later showed by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent danger to the community or flight.
The court concluded that immediate release was appropriate to restore the status quo that existed before the likely unlawful detention. It also exercised its discretion not to require the petitioners to provide security for the temporary restraining order.
Order
The court granted the petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. Respondents were ordered to release the petitioners immediately. Respondents were also restrained from re-detaining any petitioner without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decision maker and from removing any petitioner from the United States.
The order was to remain in effect until September 26, 2025, unless otherwise ordered. The court set a preliminary-injunction hearing for September 24, 2025, and established deadlines for the respondents’ response and the petitioners’ reply.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.