Acosta v. Albarran
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-09601
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Jenifer Orozco Acosta v. Sergio Albarran, Judge Gilliam granted a temporary restraining order requiring release and a hearing before any re-detention.
Jenifer Orozco Acosta was ordered released from ICE custody. The defendants—Sergio Albarran, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi—were barred from re-detaining her without the required notice and hearing.
What happened
In Jenifer Orozco Acosta v. Sergio Albarran, Jenifer Orozco Acosta challenged her arrest and detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after she attended an immigration-court hearing. She argued that the detention violated the Fifth Amendment because she was not given a hearing before being detained.
The court found that she had been conditionally released in 2023, had complied with immigration requirements, and had not been convicted of a crime. It concluded that she was likely to succeed in showing that the government violated her procedural due-process rights by detaining her without first providing a hearing to decide whether detention was necessary.
Judge Haywood Gilliam granted the temporary restraining order. The defendants had to release Ms. Orozco Acosta immediately and could not re-detain her without advance notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, where the government would have to show by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent flight or protect the public. The order was set to remain in effect until November 20, 2025, while the court considered whether to issue a preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. Albarran · No. 4:25-cv-09601
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
Jenifer Orozco Acosta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order on November 6, 2025. She was represented by counsel. She asked the court to order her immediate release from detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and to prohibit ICE from re-arresting or re-detaining her without notice and a pre-detention bond hearing.
The opinion states that Ms. Orozco Acosta entered the United States in 2023 after fleeing her home country. Immigration officials released her on her own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), concluding that she posed little, if any, flight risk or danger to the community. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and she complied with her ICE and immigration-court requirements. The opinion also states that she had not been convicted of a crime.
On November 6, 2025, she attended a master hearing in immigration court in San Francisco. The government moved to dismiss her pending case, and the immigration judge continued the hearing so she could respond. As she left the courtroom, ICE agents arrested her. At the time of the order, she was being held at the San Francisco Immigration Court.
Court’s analysis
The court first found that the requirements for an ex parte order had been met. It relied on counsel’s affidavit, which showed that continued detention would cause immediate and irreparable injury before the defendants could respond. Counsel also certified that an attempt had been made to contact the Civil Division chief at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.
The court concluded that Ms. Orozco Acosta was likely to succeed on her procedural due-process claim under the Fifth Amendment. Relying on a prior related proceeding involving similar circumstances, the court found that a noncitizen conditionally released into the United States has a significant liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody. The court stated that Ms. Orozco Acosta had lived in the United States long enough to develop ties and become part of the population entitled to due-process protections.
The court further reasoned that the statutory procedures potentially available to her did not satisfy the constitutional requirement. Even if she would receive a bond hearing after her arrest, the court found a substantial risk that she would be wrongly deprived of her liberty before that hearing. The available record suggested that she was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the public. The court therefore found that the strength of her liberty interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation, and the government’s limited countervailing interest supported preliminary relief.
The court also found irreparable harm from the likely unconstitutional deprivation of physical liberty. It concluded that the balance of the equities and the public interest favored relief because preventing a constitutional violation served the public interest and the government would face, at most, a short delay before detaining her after making the required showing to a neutral decisionmaker.
Order
The court granted Ms. Orozco Acosta’s motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. Defendants were ordered to immediately release her from custody. They were enjoined and restrained from re-detaining her unless they first provided a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with reasonable advance notice of the hearing’s time and place. At that hearing, the government would have to establish by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent her flight or protect the public.
The court exercised its discretion to require no bond from Ms. Orozco Acosta. The order was to remain in effect until November 20, 2025. The defendants were ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and the order set deadlines for the defendants’ response and any reply. The opinion excerpt does not state the scheduled hearing date or time.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.