C.I.M.O. v. ALBARRAN
- James Donato
- 3:26-cv-08654
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In C.I.M.O. v. Albarran, a federal judge ordered ICE to immediately release a Mexican asylum seeker from civil immigration detention pending a full hearing on his legal challenge.
Non-citizens in civil immigration detention in the Northern District of California who have pending appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals and no final order of removal, particularly those re-detained without a prior hearing. ICE and related federal officials are directly bound by this order.
What happened
In C.I.M.O. v. Sergio Albarran et al., No. 26-cv-08654 (N.D. Cal.), a Mexican asylum seeker identified only as C.I.M.O. filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release from civil immigration detention. C.I.M.O. had previously been released by immigration authorities on his own recognizance, attended all required hearings and check-ins, and was re-detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a check-in on the day the petition was filed. He has an appeal pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, which means there is no final order of removal against him.
C.I.M.O. argued that his re-detention without any hearing beforehand violated his constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. The court found he raised a serious legal question on this point, and that the harm to him from continued detention far outweighed any harm to the government from releasing him. The court also found that the balance of fairness and the public interest both supported granting emergency relief.
The court — whose signature appears as 'JAME[S] [?]ATO[?],' identified as a United States District Judge — granted a temporary restraining order. The order directs ICE and related officials to release C.I.M.O. no later than 10:00 a.m. on August 20, 2026, prohibits re-detaining him without a prior hearing before a neutral decision-maker, and requires the government to explain in writing by August 24, 2026, why a longer preliminary injunction should not be issued. The order is set to expire in 14 days unless extended, and no security bond is required from C.I.M.O.
The detailed version
- C.I.M.O. v. ALBARRAN · No. 3:26-cv-08654
- James Donato
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Petitioner C.I.M.O., described in the opinion as a citizen of Mexico, was held in civil immigration detention in San Francisco, California. He had previously been placed in removal proceedings and released by immigration authorities on his own recognizance. According to the petition, he complied with all immigration court hearings and required check-ins. On March 11, 2026, his asylum application was pretermitted (dismissed before a full hearing on the merits) and he was ordered removed. However, he timely filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on April 9, 2026. Because that appeal remains pending, the court noted that there is no final order of removal: under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B) and Ninth Circuit precedent, a removal order does not become administratively final until the BIA acts or the time to seek BIA review expires.
On August 19, 2026 — the same day he was re-detained by ICE at a check-in — C.I.M.O. filed both a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action challenging the lawfulness of his detention) and an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO), an emergency court order intended to preserve the status quo while the underlying case is resolved.
The named respondents — sued in their official capacities — are Sergio Albarran (Field Office Director of the San Francisco ICE Office), David J. Venturella (Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), Markwayne Mullin (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security), and Todd Blanche (Attorney General of the United States).
Legal Standards Applied
The court evaluated the TRO under the Ninth Circuit's standard from Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011), which permits relief when a petitioner raises "serious questions" on the merits and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor, even if the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits is not certain.
On the merits, the court found a serious question as to whether C.I.M.O.'s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, citing Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (balancing test for procedural due process); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690–93 (2001) (constitutional limits on immigration detention); and Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 (1990) (pre-deprivation process requirements).
On the balance of hardships, the court found it tipped sharply in C.I.M.O.'s favor, given his potentially unlawful detention and deprivation of liberty. The court further found that the balance of equities and the public interest — which it described as merging in this case — also favored granting the TRO. The court determined there was no realistic likelihood of harm to respondents from the injunction and therefore waived the security bond requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
Ruling
The court granted the TRO on August 19, 2026, at 8:50 p.m., with the following specific terms:
1. Release: Respondents and all persons acting with them or on their behalf are directed to immediately release C.I.M.O. from custody, no later than 10:00 a.m. on August 20, 2026. The government must file a status report confirming his release by 5:00 p.m. on August 20, 2026.
2. No re-detention without hearing: Respondents are enjoined (prohibited) from detaining C.I.M.O. again without first providing a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decision-maker.
3. Show-cause briefing schedule: Respondents must file a written response by August 24, 2026, explaining why a preliminary injunction (a longer-term court order) should not be issued. C.I.M.O. may file a reply by August 27, 2026.
4. Duration and security: The TRO will expire in 14 days unless extended. No security bond is required from C.I.M.O.
Notes on the Judge's Name
The judge's signature in the scanned opinion is partially legible, reading approximately 'JAME[S] [?]ATO[?], United States District Judge.' The full name cannot be confirmed from the opinion text as reproduced. A reviewer should verify the judge's identity from the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.