Daza v. Albarran

Background

Lizbeth Morelis Ibanez Daza filed a petition challenging her immigration detention and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. The named respondents were Sergio Albarran, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi. The opinion states that Ibanez Daza is from Colombia, came to the United States in approximately November 2024 seeking asylum, was apprehended at the border, and was released on her own recognizance after officials determined that she posed little, if any, flight risk or danger to the community.

As a condition of release, she had to attend periodic Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-ins. Her counsel represented that she attended all required appointments and had not been arrested since her release. On November 25, 2025, ICE detained her after she arrived for a check-in appointment in San Francisco. The evidence presented to the court indicated that ICE agents did not tell her why she was being arrested.

She argued that the detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in two ways: substantive due process, because she was detained despite posing no flight risk or danger to the community, and procedural due process, because she was not given an opportunity to challenge the arrest and detention before a neutral decisionmaker.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction. It considered whether Ibanez Daza showed a likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits, irreparable harm without immediate relief, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored an injunction. Because the government was the opposing party, the court considered the last two factors together.

The court found at least serious questions about the due-process claims. It explained that freedom from government custody is a protected liberty interest and that courts have found people released from immigration custody on bond to have a liberty interest in remaining outside custody. Applying the factors from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Ibanez Daza had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody, that a prior hearing could reduce the risk of an erroneous detention, and that the government’s interest in re-detaining her without a hearing was low under the circumstances described.

The court also found likely irreparable harm from a potentially unconstitutional detention. It concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored Ibanez Daza because the harm from unlawful detention was significant, while the government would face at most a short delay if it later showed by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent danger to the community or flight.

Order

The court granted the motion to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. It ordered respondents to immediately release Ibanez Daza from custody and enjoined and restrained them from re-detaining her without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. That hearing must include an individualized determination that she poses a flight risk or danger to public safety such that detention is necessary.

The temporary restraining order remains in effect through December 9, 2025, at 9:00 p.m. Respondents must provide a status report confirming her release by December 1, 2025. The court ordered respondents to show cause at an in-person hearing on December 9, 2025, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. It required a response by December 2 and any reply by December 4. The court also exercised its discretion to waive the bond that can otherwise be required for an injunction.