Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ali Kanouno Babae filed a habeas corpus petition and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order in the Northern District of California on October 13, 2026, naming Sergio Albarran and other federal respondents. According to the record before the court, he applied for asylum with USCIS in 2017. His declarations state that during what he understood to be a routine biometrics appointment for his work permit renewal, an ICE officer said he was brought in on an unspecified felony charge. He and his counsel received no further information about any charge, and he was detained.
Babae sought release and an order barring re-detention absent notice and a pre-deprivation hearing. The order describes no government response, so these facts are the petitioner's account on a limited record, not findings after adversarial testing. Counsel stated she contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office for the district on October 13. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín ruled on October 14, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the TRO. It treated the standard as substantially identical to that for a preliminary injunction and applied the Winter factors. Relying on Pinchi v. Noem and the Mathews v. Eldridge test, it found Babae likely to succeed on his Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim, concluding he has a substantial interest in remaining out of custody and is entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge prior to any arrest or detention. It reasoned that the government's failure to seek his detention during nine years of pending applications reflects a determination that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger, and that nothing on this record shows he no longer meets those criteria.
The court found irreparable harm because the risk of erroneous deprivation was total: he received no process and no neutral decisionmaker has found him dangerous or a flight risk. The equities and public interest favored him, since at most the government faces a short delay in detaining him if it later shows detention is necessary. The court said release restores the status quo, the moment before his likely unlawful detention.
The order requires immediate release and restrains respondents from re-detaining him without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. It bars removing him from the judicial district or the United States while proceedings continue, requires his return if already transferred, and requires a status report confirming release by 10:00 a.m. on October 14, 2026. The court found the Rule 65(b)(1) requirements met and waived a Rule 65(c) bond. Respondents must show cause at 10:00 a.m. on October 22, 2026 why a preliminary injunction should not issue, with a response due October 19 and a reply due by noon October 21. The TRO lasts until 6:29 a.m. on October 28, 2026 unless the court directs otherwise.
Key Takeaways
- This is an ex parte temporary restraining order, so the court has not finally resolved the habeas petition or the due process claim.
- The likelihood-of-success finding rests on the petitioner's record, which showed no evidence that he had become a flight risk or danger after nine years without detention.
- The court relied on Pinchi v. Noem and the Mathews balancing test for a right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge prior to arrest or detention.
- The relief is broad but short-lived, lasting only until October 28, 2026 unless extended or modified.
- The status report and the October 22 show-cause hearing give the government its first chance to respond.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a court in this district is applying Pinchi v. Noem to a person with long-pending immigration applications who was detained without notice. It is an unreported, non-final district court ruling on a developing record, so it is persuasive only on likelihood of success and does not bind other courts.
Several questions remain open: whether the government can show danger or flight risk, what the unspecified felony charge is, and whether the court will convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction after the October 22 hearing. The assigned judge may also modify the briefing schedule, and the merits of the habeas petition are undecided.