Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Edgar Fernando Guerrero Romo, a 40-year-old native of Mexico who entered the United States in 2002 at age sixteen, was granted withholding of removal by the San Francisco Immigration Court in 2018. Since then, he has complied with all ICE supervision conditions, works as a truck driver, and maintains significant family and community ties in Northern California. On October 17, 2026, while driving home to Oakland, petitioner was followed by a black SUV, blocked in by additional vehicles, and surrounded by six agents who did not identify themselves or explain the reason for his arrest. An agent broke the driver's side window with a hammer, and three agents pulled petitioner from the vehicle, slammed him onto the pavement, handcuffed him, and placed him in an SUV. When petitioner asked to see a warrant, agents showed him a photo of a document on a cell phone that appeared blank except for his name. He was taken to 630 Sansome Street for processing and then to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital for injuries sustained during the arrest, where he remained hospitalized at the time of the order.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on October 19, 2026, seeking release from custody and an injunction preventing re-detention without prior notice and a pre-deprivation hearing. The court applied the Winter standard for preliminary injunctions, requiring a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The court also considered the alternative 'serious questions' standard where the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor. The court found the requirements for issuing a TRO without notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) were satisfied, as petitioner's counsel had contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office and provided the TRO documents prior to filing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the temporary restraining order, finding petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim. The court held that petitioner 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, citing Garro Pinchi v. Noem, which applied the Mathews v. Eldridge three-part test to similar circumstances. The government's decision not to seek detention since petitioner's 2018 grant of withholding of removal reflected a determination that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, and no evidence indicated he no longer met those criteria. The court concluded petitioner had a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
The court also found petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury, noting that freedom from imprisonment lies at the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause (Zadvydas v. Davis). The risk of erroneous deprivation was total because petitioner received no process of any kind and no neutral decisionmaker had found he posed a danger or flight risk. The court held that deprivation of constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury (Hernandez v. Sessions). The balance of equities and public interest weighed heavily in favor of relief: the public has a strong interest in upholding procedural protections against unlawful detention, while the government's potential harm is minimal—at most a short delay in detention if it ultimately demonstrates necessity. The court dispensed with the bond requirement under Rule 65(c), finding no realistic likelihood of harm to respondents. The TRO orders immediate release, enjoins re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, prohibits removal from the judicial district and the United States, and requires a status report confirming release by 2 p.m. on October 20, 2026. An order to show cause hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should issue is set for November 2, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen granted withholding of removal has a protected liberty interest requiring a bond hearing before an immigration judge prior to any new detention, absent a showing of changed circumstances.
- Detention without any process—no warrant, no hearing, no neutral decisionmaker—constitutes a likely Fifth Amendment procedural due process violation.
- The government's prior determination that a noncitizen is not a flight risk or danger creates a strong presumption against subsequent detention without new evidence.
- Deprivation of constitutional rights, particularly liberty, constitutes per se irreparable harm justifying injunctive relief.
- Courts may dispense with bond requirements in immigration detention cases where the government faces no legally cognizable harm from being enjoined from constitutional violations.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces procedural due process protections for noncitizens with prior grants of relief from removal, establishing that the government cannot circumvent bond hearing requirements by effecting warrantless arrests based on administrative documents shown only as cell phone photos. The decision applies the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test in the immigration detention context, emphasizing that the government's interest in detention must be weighed against the individual's substantial liberty interest and the risk of erroneous deprivation. By ordering immediate release and enjoining re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing, the court affirms that the status quo for a long-term resident with withholding of removal is liberty, not detention. The ruling aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing that preventing constitutional violations is always in the public interest and that the costs of immigration detention to the public are staggering.