Garcia v. Albarran

Background

Martina Martin Garcia filed a petition seeking review of her immigration detention and moved for a temporary restraining order. The opinion states that she is an asylum seeker who came to the United States from Guatemala in April 2024. She was released on her own recognizance and placed in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. According to the record, she complied with her supervision conditions and did not miss an in-person Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Intensive Supervision Appearance Program check-in. The opinion also states that she had no criminal history and no prior entries into the United States.

Garcia received a removal order on June 24, 2025, and appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals the same day. The court stated that the appeal stayed her removal and that the appeal was still awaiting a decision, so she was not subject to a final removal order. On December 11, 2025, she was arrested while attending a scheduled Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in in San Francisco and was detained there. The opinion states that she was separated from her one-year-old United States-citizen baby and her other children. It also states that the arrest may have resulted from minor technical violations caused by a government-system failure or communication failure, although the court did not resolve that issue in this order.

Garcia argued that her arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. She asserted both that the government lacked a valid basis to detain her and that she was denied a bond hearing before detention.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard for a temporary restraining order, which is substantially the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. The court considered whether Garcia was likely to succeed on the merits, whether she would suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief, whether the balance of harms favored relief, and whether relief served the public interest.

The court concluded that Garcia had shown a likelihood of success on her procedural due process claim. It held that she had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and that the Due Process Clause entitled her to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before any arrest or detention. The court also found that detention without such a hearing was likely unconstitutional and therefore constituted irreparable harm.

The court found that the balance of equities and the public interest also favored temporary relief. It reasoned that the public has a strong interest in protecting procedural safeguards against unlawful detention, while the government would face, at most, a short delay if it later demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent danger to the community or flight.

Order

The court granted Garcia’s motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing on the petition and possible preliminary injunction concerning re-detention. Respondents were ordered to file a status report confirming Garcia’s release by 10:00 a.m. on December 13, 2025, and were prohibited from re-detaining her before resolution of the forthcoming hearing.

The court also ordered respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted and why a preliminary injunction should not issue concerning re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, as well as removal of Garcia from the United States. The order set briefing deadlines and a hearing for December 26, 2025, while stating that the schedule could be changed. The court waived the requirement that Garcia post security for the temporary restraining order.

The opinion text supplied for review identifies the judge in the signature block as Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, although the accompanying case information lists Jon Tigar.