Larios v. Albarran

Background

Jorge Rivera Larios filed a petition challenging his immigration detention and sought emergency relief. He asked the court to order his release and prevent the government from transferring him out of the district or deporting him while the underlying proceedings continued. The court first issued a temporary restraining order and ordered his release. The government then opposed a preliminary injunction.

Rivera Larios had been released by the Department of Homeland Security in January 2022 under an order of supervision. One condition required him not to commit crimes. In August 2025, he called the Lake County Sheriff’s Office when his wife was behaving violently toward him. Officers detained him, but he was released about a day later. A detention certificate stated that he had been detained, not arrested, and that no charges were being filed.

At an October 2025 check-in, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer determined that Rivera Larios’s contact with law enforcement showed that he had violated his release conditions. The government sought to re-detain him. Rivera Larios argued that the government lacked evidence that he had committed a crime and that he was entitled to notice and a hearing before being re-detained.

Jurisdiction

The government argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) prevented the court from reviewing the immigration officer’s decision. The court rejected that argument. Relying on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority, the court concluded that the relevant regulation did not make the decision unreviewable and that determining whether Rivera Larios committed a crime was a mixed question of law and fact, not merely a factual determination beyond judicial review.

Preliminary-Injunction Standard

A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before a final decision. The court applied four factors: whether Rivera Larios was likely to succeed on his claims, whether he faced irreparable harm without relief, whether the balance of harms favored him, and whether an injunction served the public interest.

Immigration-Law Claim

The court found that Rivera Larios was likely to succeed on his claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l). Those provisions govern supervision and possible revocation of release after the removal period. The court stated that the government could not re-detain him absent a violation of his supervision conditions.

The government relied on Rivera Larios’s disclosure of his police contact and later pointed to an FBI report. The court found that the disclosure did not establish that he had committed a crime. It also found that the FBI report did not provide factual or legal support for that conclusion, included imprecise references to law-enforcement contact, and was dated after the government’s October 14 re-detention decision. The detention certificate further weakened the government’s position because it stated that Rivera Larios had not been arrested and had not been charged.

The court concluded that Rivera Larios had not violated his supervision conditions on the evidence presented and that the government lacked legal and factual support to re-detain him. It therefore found a likelihood of success on his claim that the proposed re-detention violated § 1231 and the implementing regulation.

Fifth Amendment Due-Process Claim

The court separately found that Rivera Larios was likely to succeed on his procedural due-process claim. Procedural due process generally requires fair procedures before the government deprives a person of a protected liberty interest. Applying the Supreme Court’s three-part balancing test, the court considered Rivera Larios’s liberty interest, the risk of an erroneous detention, and the government’s interest and the burden of additional procedures.

The court found that Rivera Larios had a protected interest in remaining free because he had lived outside detention for several years under supervision. It found a high risk of an erroneous deprivation because the government sought to re-detain him without a hearing and without evidence of criminal conduct. The court also found that the government’s interest in detaining him without a hearing was low and that custody hearings in immigration court impose a minimal burden.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that Rivera Larios was entitled to notice and a hearing before re-detention. The court therefore found a likelihood of success on his due-process claim.

Other Injunction Factors

The court found that detention would cause irreparable harm by depriving Rivera Larios of his liberty and imposing severe financial and other burdens on him and his family. It also concluded that the public interest and balance of harms favored him because the public has a strong interest in procedural protections against unlawful detention, while the government would face only a limited delay if it later established a lawful basis for detention.

Ruling

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Rivera Larios’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The order enjoins and restrains the government from re-detaining him without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an Immigration Judge to determine whether re-detention is warranted based on flight risk or danger to the community. The court required no security bond because the government presented no evidence of costs it would incur from Rivera Larios’s release.