Andundia-Carillo v. Albarran

Background

Narcisa Andundia-Carillo filed a petition challenging her civil immigration detention and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion states that she came to the United States from Ecuador in 2022, had been released after nearly two months in immigration detention, and had remained on the non-detained docket while pursuing an asylum claim. She had a merits hearing scheduled for January 8, 2026.

On December 3, 2025, Andundia-Carillo attended an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in in San Francisco. According to the petition, officers detained her based on an alleged missed self-reporting check-in on July 23, 2025, although no appointment for that date appeared in her application. The petition also alleged that officers did not allow her attorney to speak with her after the detention and did not provide evidence documenting the grounds for detention.

She asked the court to order her immediate release, prevent re-detention unless the government first established by clear and convincing evidence at a bond hearing that detention was necessary because she presented a flight risk or danger to the community, and prevent her transfer or removal while the habeas proceedings continued.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the temporary-restraining-order standard, which is substantially the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. The relevant factors were the likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, the balance of the hardships, and the public interest.

The court found that Andundia-Carillo had shown a likelihood of success on her claim that her ongoing detention violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. It stated that she had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and was entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before any arrest or detention. The court also found that the likely deprivation of liberty was immediate and irreparable.

The court concluded that the balance of equities and public interest favored temporary relief. It reasoned that the government would face, at most, a short delay in detention if it later demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent danger or flight. The court also found that immediate release would restore the status quo that existed before the disputed detention. It exercised its discretion to require no security bond.

Disposition

The court granted Andundia-Carillo’s motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. Respondents were ordered to release her immediately. 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 in effect until December 17, 2025, from the date it issued. The respondents were ordered to appear and show cause at a December 17 hearing why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The court set deadlines for the respondents’ response and any reply, subject to modification by the assigned judge.