Flores v. Albarran

Background

Lesbia Jesenia Leiva Flores filed a petition asking for release from the custody of immigration authorities and a temporary restraining order. The respondents identified in the opinion were Sergio Albarran, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi. The opinion states that Flores is an asylum seeker from Nicaragua who entered the United States in July 2021 and was paroled after the Department of Homeland Security determined that she posed little, if any, flight risk or danger to the community.

The opinion states that Flores was never placed in removal proceedings and had affirmatively applied for asylum through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Asylum Office. On June 12, 2025, she received a notice stating that the agency was dismissing her asylum application because she had been placed in expedited removal proceedings. On October 28, 2025, she reported for a scheduled Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in and was detained. She was being held at 630 Sansome Street in San Francisco, California when the petition was filed.

Flores argued that her arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Her argument included both a substantive claim that the respondents lacked a valid interest in detaining her and a procedural claim that she had not received a bond hearing before detention.

Temporary restraining order analysis

The court applied the standard for temporary restraining orders, which is substantially the same as the standard for preliminary injunctions. The court considered whether Flores was likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, whether the balance of hardships favored her, and whether relief would serve the public interest.

The court found that Flores had shown a likelihood of success on her procedural due process claim. It stated that she had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and that the Due Process Clause entitled her to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before arrest or detention in these circumstances.

The court also found likely irreparable harm from the possible unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. It concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored procedural protections against unlawful detention. The court stated that the government could later detain Flores if it showed by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent danger to the community or flight.

Order

The court granted Flores's motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. The respondents were ordered to immediately release her from custody. They were enjoined and restrained from re-detaining her without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and from removing her from the United States.

The order remained effective until November 12, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., unless the parties stipulated to continue it until a later hearing date. The respondents had to file a status report confirming Flores's release by 10:00 a.m. on October 30, 2025. The court ordered the respondents to show cause at a November 12 hearing why a preliminary injunction should not issue and set related briefing requirements. The court also dispensed with the security bond otherwise authorized under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).