Claros v. Albarran

Background

Enil Jabib Claros is a noncitizen from Honduras who has lived in the United States for six years under supervised release. In 2011, he was convicted of battery, received a removal order, and was removed. After he crossed the border in 2019, the removal order was reinstated. Claros claimed fear of returning to Honduras and was released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on his own recognizance while awaiting a reasonable-fear interview, subject to regular check-ins.

On November 3, 2025, Claros attended the interview with counsel. He testified about violence and death threats in Honduras, including alleged police violence and threats against his family. After an asylum officer made a negative reasonable-fear finding, Claros requested review by an immigration judge. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents then detained him and told him only that he had a deportation order.

The court had previously granted Claros’s request for a temporary restraining order, and he asked the court to convert that order into a preliminary injunction. The day after the temporary restraining order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement released him. An immigration judge later found that Claros had a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, vacated the negative interview finding, and placed him in withholding-only proceedings.

Court’s Analysis

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Claros had to show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balance of hardships, and that the injunction would serve the public interest. The court found that all four considerations supported relief.

The court concluded that Claros was likely to succeed on his due-process claim, or at least raised serious questions requiring further review. The court held that his release on his own recognizance created a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, so long as he complied with the release conditions. The government did not argue that he had violated those conditions.

The court also determined that the government had not complied with the regulation governing revocation of supervised release. Claros was not given notice stating the reason for revocation or an opportunity to contest it. The government’s explanation that the release had served its purpose after the reasonable-fear interview was not sufficient, particularly because Claros had appealed the negative finding and the process was still ongoing when he was detained.

The court found a high risk of erroneous detention without a hearing. It considered the government’s arguments about Claros’s 2011 conviction and a later arrest, but noted his six years of compliance with immigration check-ins and his appearances before immigration and immigration courts. The court found no adverse evidence showing that he presented a greater flight risk or danger than when the government released him.

The court further found that detention without constitutionally sufficient process would cause irreparable harm, including harm to Claros’s liberty, health, and well-being, as well as harms to his family. It concluded that the government had not shown a sufficient countervailing interest in denying a pre-detention hearing. The court also found that the government’s potential burden from a hearing and any delay in removal would be minimal, while the public had a strong interest in preventing unlawful detention.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Claros’s request for a preliminary injunction. It ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED the government from:

1. Re-detaining Claros without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Claros is a flight risk or danger requiring physical custody; and 2. Removing Claros from the United States while these proceedings continue.

The order addressed preliminary relief; it did not state that the court had entered a final judgment on the underlying immigration proceedings.