Mazorra v. Albarran

Background

Andres Felipe Arrechea Mazorra filed a petition seeking relief from immigration detention and moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency court order intended to prevent immediate harm while the case proceeds. The respondents named in the opinion are Sergio Albarran, the Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office; Todd M. Lyons, the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, the United States Attorney General.

According to the record before the court, Mazorra is an asylum seeker who came to the United States from Colombia in 2024. The opinion states that he had been released on parole at the border, reported to required check-ins, had his ankle monitor removed after his first appointment, followed Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidelines, and had no criminal history. On December 3, 2025, he attended an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in in San Francisco and was detained. He was then taken to Highland Hospital in Oakland after experiencing nausea, headaches, and difficulty breathing. The petition stated that doctors were treating serious diabetes complications and ordering additional tests.

Mazorra argued that his arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the respondents allegedly lacked a valid basis for detention and did not provide a bond hearing before detention.

Court's analysis

The court applied the four-factor test for temporary injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. The court found that Mazorra was likely to succeed on his claim that his ongoing detention violated procedural due process. It concluded that he had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and was entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before arrest or detention.

The court also found likely irreparable harm from the continued deprivation of liberty. It determined that the balance of hardships and public interest favored temporary relief because the potential harm to Mazorra was significant, while the government would face, at most, a short delay in detention if it later showed by clear and convincing evidence that detention was needed to prevent danger to the community or flight.

The court concluded that immediate release was appropriate to restore the status quo—the last uncontested situation before the dispute. It also exercised its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to waive the requirement that Mazorra provide security or a bond for the temporary restraining order.

Order

The court granted Mazorra's motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. The respondents were ordered to immediately release him from custody pending full briefing and a hearing on the underlying petition and/or a preliminary injunction concerning possible re-detention. They were also ordered not to re-detain him pending resolution of the forthcoming hearing.

The respondents were ordered to file a status report confirming release by 10:00 a.m. on December 9, 2025, and to show cause why the petition should not be granted and/or a preliminary injunction should not issue regarding re-detention. The order set deadlines for the response and reply and scheduled a hearing by Zoom for December 22, 2025. The order stated that it would remain in effect until that time, subject to possible changes by the assigned judge.