Araujo Campos v. Ammons et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
MARCUS VINICIUS ARAUJO CAMPOS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	26-11556-FDS
)
JERRY SCOTT AMMONS, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
_______________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
Plaintiff, a Brazilian national who has resided in the United States for roughly 30 years,
seeks a temporary restraining order preventing the government from detaining him at an
upcoming adjustment-of-status interview with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
concerning a petition for permanent residency filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen spouse. He
contends that the government has adopted an informal policy of arresting and detaining
applicants at such interviews.
“The standard for issuing a TRO . . . is the same as for a preliminary injunction.”
California v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 3d 72, 76 (D. Mass. 2025) (citation modified). A
plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim; that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of temporary relief; that the balance of equities tips in his favor;
and that the order is in the public interest. Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News
Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011).
Case 1:26-cv-11556-FDS Document 8 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff seeks a TRO on several grounds. He contends that the government’s policy of
detaining noncitizens at adjustment-of-status interviews violates the Administrative Procedure
Act; the doctrine of United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954); and the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (He raises a fourth ground for relief, that the
government effected a change in policy that required notice-and-comment rulemaking, but that
ground is a subset of the APA claim).
Unfortunately for plaintiff, the issue is not whether the government is acting unfairly,
irresponsibly, or inhumanely; it is whether it is acting contrary to law. After a careful review, the
Court concludes that he has not shown a likelihood of success as to any of his legal claims.
Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on his APA claim because he is not likely to show that
there is in fact a final agency action that this Court may review. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. To be sure,
as other courts have recognized, a policy need not be written down and formalized to constitute
final agency action. See R.I.L.-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 174-76, 184-85 (D.D.C. 2015)
(finding unwritten immigration policy to be reviewable agency action where supported by
practitioner affidavits as well as being “essentially conceded” by the government). Here,
however, plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that there is an
actual policy of arresting noncitizens seeking adjustment of status at their interviews. Plaintiff
has provided affidavits from several immigration practitioners in Southern California indicating
that the government has arrested some noncitizens at adjustment-of-status interviews at USCIS’s
San Diego field office. He has also provided news articles suggesting that at least some such
arrests have been made in Fresno, California; Cleveland, Ohio; and Salt Lake City, Utah. (Dkt.
No. 14 at 23-119). But that is not enough to show that there is a nationwide policy concerning
such arrests, that such a policy is in place in Boston, or with what frequency those seeking
Case 1:26-cv-11556-FDS Document 8 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 4

3
adjustment of status are in fact arrested at their interviews. And in other cases where courts have
found unwritten policies reviewable under the APA, there has been significantly more evidence
of the existence of the relevant policy. For that reason, the Court finds that plaintiff is not likely
to succeed on the merits of his APA claim.
Plaintiff’s claim under the Accardi doctrine also fails, because he does not identify which
DHS or USCIS regulation defendants have allegedly violated. The Accardi doctrine holds that
“[a]n agency has the duty to follow its own federal regulations, even when those regulations
provide greater protection than is constitutionally required.” Nelson v. I.N.S., 232 F.3d 258, 262
(1st Cir. 2000). Thus, if USCIS had a rule providing that under no circumstances should
noncitizens be arrested or detained at adjustment-of-status interviews, and proceeded to arrest
noncitizens nonetheless, such action would violate the Accardi doctrine. But plaintiffs have not
identified any such regulation, and have only made broad claims about the nature of adjustment-
of-status interviews being “adjudicative in nature” and not designed “to facilitate enforcement
actions.” (Dkt. No. 7 at 14). While that may be true, the Accardi doctrine does not apply under
such circumstances.
Finally, plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on his claim that detaining
noncitizens at adjustment-of-status hearings violates the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff contends
that he “faces a credible and immediate threat of detention without prior notice or any
meaningful opportunity to be heard.” (Dkt. No. 7 at 14). But detention, even in a criminal case,
need not be preceded by notice and an opportunity to be heard as long as the accused receives
those protections shortly after detention. Cf. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56
(1991). Similarly, because plaintiff would apparently be detained, if at all, under the
discretionary detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), he would be entitled to a post-detention
Case 1:26-cv-11556-FDS Document 8 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 4

4
bond hearing at which the government would have to prove that he is either a flight risk or a
danger to the community to justify his continued detention. Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th
19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021). Under such circumstances, detention without first providing notice and an
opportunity to be heard does not violate the Fifth Amendment.
Therefore, because plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of
any of his claims, the Court will DENY the motion for a TRO at this juncture.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: April 7, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-11556-FDS Document 8 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 4