Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
According to the habeas petition as recited in the order, Shirley Bobb Sequeira fled Nicaragua in 2023, entered the United States without inspection on or about October 29, 2023, and was arrested on entry. Immigration authorities released her within 24 hours because she was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. The petition further states that she has since reported to ICE and its Intensive Supervision Appearance Program whenever told to, attended her immigration court hearing, and filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, which have been pending since September 15, 2025.
On October 19, 2026, Sequeira was re-detained when she appeared for an ICE check-in at the San Francisco Field Office. The same day she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order seeking release and an order barring re-detention without prior notice and a pre-deprivation hearing. She asserts that she is a member of the class in Garro Pinchi v. Noem, 813 F. Supp. 3d 973 (N.D. Cal. 2025). The court did not decide that question, but it directed respondents to address in their response why their actions are not enjoined by, and in violation of, the preliminary injunction in that case.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the TRO, applying the same four-factor test that governs preliminary injunctions. It found Sequeira likely to succeed on her Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim. Relying on its earlier decision in Garro Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2025), which applied the Mathews v. Eldridge test, the court reasoned that the Due Process Clause entitles her to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before any arrest or detention. The government's decision not to detain her while her applications were pending reflected a determination that she was neither a flight risk nor a danger, and although law enforcement once held her for four hours after her family's car broke down, nothing in this record showed she no longer met those criteria.
The court found likely irreparable harm because the likely unconstitutional deprivation of liberty was immediate, and the risk of erroneous deprivation was total: she received no process and no neutral decisionmaker had found her dangerous or a flight risk. The merged equities and public interest factors favored her, since the government at most faces a short delay if it later shows danger or flight. Release restored the status quo, the moment before the likely unlawful detention. The court found Rule 65(b)(1) satisfied, noting counsel's statement that she contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office on October 19, 2026, and it waived a Rule 65(c) bond.
The order requires immediate release and enjoins re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. It bars moving Sequeira from the judicial district, requires her return if already transferred, and prohibits removing her from the United States until the proceedings end. Respondents owed a release status report by noon on October 20, 2026, and a response by October 26, and must appear in person on November 2, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The order lasts until 6:45 a.m. on November 3, 2026, unless the court directs otherwise.
Key Takeaways
- The court found, on a preliminary record, that re-detaining a long-compliant asylum applicant at an ICE check-in without a prior bond hearing likely violates procedural due process.
- A government decision to leave a person at liberty while her applications are pending supported the finding that she is neither a flight risk nor a danger.
- The relief is temporary: release, a bar on re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing, and limits on transfer and removal.
- The government may still seek detention by showing danger or flight through the process the court requires.
Why It Matters
This is a temporary order entered ex parte on the petitioner's account of the facts, not a final ruling on the habeas petition. Respondents had not yet been heard, and the court left for later briefing whether a preliminary injunction should issue.
Open questions include whether Sequeira is a Garro Pinchi class member and whether respondents violated that injunction. As a district court order, it is persuasive only. By its terms the TRO expired on November 3, 2026, unless extended, and the materials do not show what happened at the hearing.