Paternina v. Albarran

Background

Nestor Andres Arrieta Paternina filed a petition seeking relief from immigration detention and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. The respondents named in the opinion were Acting Field Office Director Sergio Albarran, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd M. Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and United States Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

According to the record described by the court, Paternina was an asylum seeker who fled Colombia and entered the United States in early 2024. The petition stated that he had attended scheduled immigration appointments and court hearings, filed an asylum application, and had no known criminal history. He was arrested on December 3, 2025, while attending an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in in San Francisco. The opinion states that his counsel was denied access to him and that he was detained at the check-in location.

Paternina argued that his arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in two ways: substantively, because the respondents allegedly lacked a valid reason to detain him, and procedurally, because he was not given a bond hearing before detention.

Temporary-restraining-order standard

The court explained that the standard for a temporary restraining order is substantially the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. The moving party must generally show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction. A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy generally intended to preserve the existing situation and prevent irreparable harm until a hearing can occur.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Paternina had shown a likelihood of success on his procedural due process claim. It concluded that he had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and that the Due Process Clause entitled him to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before arrest or detention in the circumstances presented.

The court also found likely irreparable injury because detention without the required hearing was likely an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. It determined that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored temporary relief, reasoning that the government would face at most a short delay in detention if it later established by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent danger to the community or flight.

Order

The court granted the motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. Respondents were ordered to immediately release Paternina from custody and were enjoined from re-detaining him. The order stated that it would remain in effect until December 17, 2025.

Respondents were ordered to appear at a December 17, 2025 hearing and show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Their response was due December 10, 2025, and any reply was due December 14, 2025. Under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court waived the requirement that Paternina post a bond or other security.

The opinion’s reproduced order contains an apparent text-recognition or formatting error in the sentence describing the restraint on respondents’ conduct after release. The clear portions of the order require immediate release and prohibit re-detention, but the reproduced text does not clearly display the full scope of every requested restriction.