Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICARDO ROBIRO RUEDA and
RICARDO FABIAN RUEDA GALIANO, :
Plaintiffs
V.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP and IMMIGRATION
SERVICES; SECRETARY OF OHS,
in his official capacity; and
DIRECTOR OF USCIS, in her official
capacity,
Defendants
No. 3:26cv45
(Judge Munley)
........................................................ ....... .. ..... ................. .....................• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ • ■ ••• ■ •••••• ■ •••• • • ■ ••• • ••••••••• ■ ••• ■ • ■ •• ■ • •••••••••••••••••
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a pro se emergency motion for temporary restraining
order (''TRO") filed by Plaintiffs Ricardo Robiro Rueda and Ricardo Fabian Rueda
Galiano, (Doc. 2), in this matter involving the Department of Homeland Security's
(" OHS ") Termination of Family Reunification Parole Processes for Colombians,
Cubans, Ecuadorans, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and Salvadorans
("OHS Administrative Action "), 90 Fed. Reg . 58032 (Dec. 15 , 2025).
Rueda and Rueda Galiano seek a TRO preventing defendants from
enforcing the termination of the Family Reunification Parole and work
authorization programs ("FRP programs") afforded to Rueda Galiano. Plaintiffs
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 9

"seek only to preserve the status quo" pending a ruling on the legality of
defendants' actions. (Doc. 2 at 2).
As alleged in the emergency motion for TRO , Plaintiff Ricardo Robiro
Rueda is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. kt at 2, Factual
Background ,I 1. 	On March 3, 2017, Rueda filed a Form 1-130 family-based
immigrant petition with USCIS on behalf of his son , Rueda Galiano. ~ ,I 2.
USCIS approved the Form 1-130 petition on October 27, 2020. ~ ,I 3. 	On
November 17 , 2023, Rueda received an official invitation letter from USCIS to
participate in the Family Reunification Parole Process for Ecuadorians. ~ ,I 4.
Plaintiffs fully complied with all OHS and USCIS requirements for the FRP
program . kt ,I 5. 	OHS then issued official travel authorizations permitting
Rueda's son , Plaintiff Ricardo Fabian Rueda Galiano and his children to enter
the United States. ~ ,I 6. 	Rueda Galiano entered the United States lawfully on
April 10 , 2024, pursuant to Family Reunification Parole.~ ,I 7. 	His parole and
Employment Authorization Document are valid through April 9, 2027. ~ ,I 8.
Rueda Galiano alleges that he is lawfully employed , as is one of his adult
children . ~ ,I,I 9- 10. 	Additionally, Rueda Galiano's two minor children are
currently enrolled in high school. ~ ,I 10 .
According to the plaintiffs, on January 5, 2026, OHS notified Rueda Galiano
that: 1) the FRP programs were terminated ; 2) Rueda Galiano must depart the
2
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 9

United States by Wednesday, January 14, 2026; and 3) his valid employment
authorization would be revoked effective that same date. kl 1111. 	Plaintiffs
assert that they were given no hearing , no individualized review, and no
opportunity to appeal. kl 1112. 	They contend that defendants' actions constitute
arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706, and that revocation of parole and
employment authorization without process violates the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process Clause.
Rueda Galiano is not the only individual subject to this OHS Administrative
Action. 	On Saturday, January 10 , 2026, the Honorable Indira Talwani of the
District of Massachusetts granted an emergency 14-day stay of the OHS
Administrative Action insofar as it revoked "previously granted parole and work
authorization issued to noncitizens paroled into the United States pursuant to the
FRP programs prior to the noncitizens' originally stated parole end dates ." Doe v.
Noem, No. 1:25-CV-10495-IT, 2026 WL 77330, at *3 (D . Mass. Jan. 10 , 2026).
Doe is a class action . A review of the docket in Doe indicates that a motion
to modify class definition was granted on January 10 , 2026. 	(Doe v. Noem, Doc.
241 ). 	According to that order, a prior order granting class certification was
modified to add the following subclass:
All individuals who have received a grant of parole that is
subject to the Termination of Family Reunification Parole
3
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 9

Id.
Processes 	for 	Columbians, 	Cubans, 	Ecuadorians,
Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and Salvadorans, 90
Fed . Red. 	58032 	(Dec. 	15 , 2025), 	rescinding 	individual
grants of parole on a categorical and en masse basis.
The Doe court also appointed additional named plaintiffs to join previously
named plaintiffs. 	Class counsel for the certified class has also been appointed.
Therefore, it appears that Rueda and Rueda Galiano are members of the
certified class in Doe as of just two days ago.
To maintain the status quo while this gets sorted out, the court will grant the
TRO and require the government to respond on the issues. 1 The court may, in
its discretion , later vacate this order, and then stay or transfer this action in light
of Doe.
Under the law, "[a] temporary restraining order is a stay put, equitable
remedy that has as its essential purpose the preservation of the status quo while
the merits of the cause are explored through litigation." J.O v. Orange Twp. Bd.
of Edu., 287 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 'TROs may be
issued without notice, so long as other procedural safeguards are followed." Doe
#1 v. Noem , 781 F. Supp. 3d 246, 259 (D.N.J. 2025); see also FED. R. CIv. P.
65(b).
1 To the extent that the OHS Administrative Action was intended to be effective as of January
14 , 2026, the court issues this TRO without notice to the government.
4
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 9

The factors to consider in whether to grant a TRO or a preliminary
injunction under Federal Rule of Procedure 65 are the same: (1) likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm to the movant in the
absence of relief; (3) balance of the harms between the plaintiff on the one hand
and the defendants on the other; and (4) the public interest. Osorio-Martinez v.
Att'y Gen ., 893 F.3d 153, 178 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc ., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (quotation marks omitted). The issues of
likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm are considered fi rst , as
they are the "most critical. " Reilly v. City of Harrisburg , 858 F. 3d 173, 179 (3d Cir.
2017) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 , 434 (2009)). Should the
government be the opposing party, the third and fourth factors are considered
together.~ (citing Nken , 556 U.S. at 435).
Likelihood of success on the merits - Plaintiffs assert that the sudden
termination of FRP programs constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action
in violation of the APA "because it fails to consider reliance interests, provides no
reasoned explanation , and applies without individualized determinations ." 	(Doc.
2 at 3). 	Furthermore, Rueda Galiano argues that he was inspected and paroled
into the United States and relied on lawful authorization to work and reside here.
He contends that revocation of parole and employment authorization without
process violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
5
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 9

"A likelihood of success on the merits means only a reasonable probability
of success-odds that are significantly better than negligible but not necessarily
more likely than not. " Doe, 781 F. Supp. 3d at 260 (citing Veterans Guardian VA
Claim Consulting LLC v. Platkin , 133 F.4th 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2025); Reilly, 858
F.3d at 179) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, interim injunctive
relief " is supposed to be 'only a prediction about the merits of the case .'"
Delaware State Sportsmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Delaware Dep't of Safety & Homeland
Sec ., 108 F.4th 194, 201 (3d Cir. 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Gray v. Jennings,
145 S. Ct. 1049 (2025) (quoting United States v. Loe . 560 (I.B.T.), 974 F.2d 315,
330 (3d Cir. 1992).
Understanding that plaintiffs proceed pro se, their argument on this factor is
relatively undeveloped. 	Based on a preliminary review for the purposes of the
TRO , the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success with their "gives no
reasoned explanation" argument. 	Specifically, it is unclear to the court whether
the OHS Secretary explained her opinion as to why, after a case-specific parole
determination, that the purposes of such parole have been served with respect to
Plaintiff Rueda Galiano and his children. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).2 This
2 This full subsection provides:
The Secretary of Homeland Security may, except as provided in
subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion
parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as
he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent
6
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 9

factor has been met for a TRO. 	Under the present time constraints, however, the
court is unable to conduct a full merits review of the conduct of the OHS
Secretary with respect to the challenged OHS Administrative Action.
Likelihood of irreparable harm - 	Revocation of parole will result in Rueda
Galiano and his children accruing unlawful presence. 	Understanding the current
landscape, they will be subject to detention and deportation proceedings. 	Rueda
Galiano further indicates he will lose unlawful employment, his children will be
forced to leave school mid-year, and the family will again be separated after
lawful reunification . This factor has also been met.
Balance of harms: public interest - 	Rueda Galiano has established the
harm that is risked absent the TRO, while any harm to the government will be
minimal for the short time that any TRO is in place. 	Furthermore, the public
interest favors compliance with the law, including the APA, and the due process
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying
for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien
shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the
purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith
return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and
thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same
manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United
States.
8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)
7
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 9

rights afforded to citizens and noncitizens alike. See Doe #1 , 781 F. Supp. 3d at
268.
Consequently, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a TRO, (Doc. 2), is GRANTED as of
January 12, 2026 at 5:00 PM;
2) Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $100.00 with the Clerk of
Court in accordance with FED . R. CIv. P. 65(c);
3) Defendants, their officers, agents, and all persons acting in concert with
them are temporarily restrained from enforcing the termination of FRP
programs as applied to Plaintiffs Ricardo Robiro Rueda , Ricardo Fabian
Rueda Galiano, and Rueda Galiano's children;
4) Defendants are temporarily restrained from revoking or suspending any
Employment Authorization Document issued to Plaintiff Ricardo Fabian
Rueda Galiano;
5) Defendants are temporarily restrained from initiating removal or
deportation proceedings against Plaintiff Ricardo Fabian Rueda Galiano
based on the termination of FRP programs ;
6) The government shall file a response to the motion on or before
January 20, 2026 and show cause as to why a preliminary injunction
should not be issued;
8
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 9

•
•
7) Thereafter, a hearing will be scheduled , if necessary, within a period not
to exceed 14 days from the date of this order;
8) The government shall indicate whether they consider plaintiffs to be
members of the certified class in Doe v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-10495-IT
(D . Mass.) and subject to the TRO entered in that matter;
9) Plaintiff may file a reply on or before January 23, 2026; and
10) 	The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order by United States
Postal Service, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested ;
9
Case 3:26-cv-00045-JKM Document 6 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 9