Chavarriaga Rojas v. Albarran

Background

Petitioners Sebastian Chavarriaga Rojas, Maria Camila Gomez Vasquez, Leon Felipe Hernandez Leal, and Julian David Carvajal Mendoza are described as asylum-seekers who fled Colombia and entered the United States between December 2023 and June 2024. Immigration officials apprehended and released them pending removal proceedings in immigration court.

On September 25, 2025, the petitioners appeared for a master calendar hearing at the immigration court in San Francisco. The government moved to dismiss their pending removal proceedings so it could pursue expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). The immigration judge continued the hearings to allow the petitioners to respond. Shortly after the petitioners left the courtroom and before they left the courthouse, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested them. They were being held at the San Francisco Immigration Court when they filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. They were represented by counsel.

The petitioners argued, among other things, that their arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Their claims included an argument that the defendants lacked a valid basis for detaining them and an argument that the defendants had not provided, or would not provide, pre-detention bond hearings. The defendants were Sergio Albarran, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi, in the roles identified in the opinion.

Court’s analysis

The court first found that the requirements for an ex parte order had been met. The court relied on counsel’s affidavit, which showed that continued detention would cause immediate and irreparable injury before the defendants could respond, and on counsel’s effort to contact the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.

Applying the standard for a temporary restraining order, the court considered likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest. The court concluded that the petitioners were likely to succeed on their procedural due-process claim. It reasoned that people conditionally released into the United States have a significant liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody and that the petitioners’ more than 15 months of residence meant that the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections applied to that interest.

The court further concluded that the statutory procedures potentially available to the petitioners did not satisfy the constitutional requirement. Even if the petitioners might receive a post-arrest bond hearing, the court found a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty while they remained detained. The available record suggested to the court that the petitioners were neither flight risks nor dangers to the public. The court found the government’s countervailing interest in continued detention minimal compared with the petitioners’ liberty interest and the limited cost of providing a custody hearing.

The court also found irreparable injury because the petitioners were likely being deprived of their physical liberty unconstitutionally. It found that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief because the petitioners were suffering ongoing harm, the potential harm to the government from delaying detention was minimal, and preventing constitutional violations served the public interest. The court determined that immediate release was necessary to restore the status quo—the parties’ situation before the challenged detention.

Order

The opinion initially states that the court granted the requested order in part. In its conclusion, the court states that the petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order was granted to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. The defendants were ordered to immediately release the petitioners and were enjoined from re-detaining them without first providing a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. If the defendants conducted such a hearing, they were ordered to give reasonable advance notice of its time and place.

The court exercised its discretion not to require the petitioners to post a bond. The temporary restraining order remains in effect until October 9, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The court ordered the defendants to show cause at an October 7, 2025 hearing why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The order also set deadlines for service, status reports, the defendants’ response, and any reply.