(HC) O.G. v. Albarran et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DIANA LUCIA O.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
SERGIO ALBARRAN, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:26-cv-00010-TLN-DMC
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction
should not issue (ECF No. 4) after granting Petitioner Diana Lucia O.G.’s (“Petitioner”)
underlying Ex-Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 2).
Respondents filed a response and waived a hearing. (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons set forth
below, the Court issues a preliminary injunction.
///
///
///
Case 1:26-cv-00010-TLN-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia and an asylum applicant in the United States. (ECF
No. 2 at 2.) Petitioner came to the United States on March 11, 2023. (Id.) The next day,
immigration authorities released her into the interior to pursue her asylum application. (Id.)
For over two and a half years, Petitioner established a life in the United States and
complied with the conditions of her release. (Id.) She lives with her husband and two minor
children. (Id.) Petitioner reports that she maintained a valid address with immigration authorities
and appeared to appointments as required. (Id.) Petitioner also reports that she has never been
arrested and has no criminal history. (Id.) Petitioner’s immigration case is ongoing and there is
no final order of removal. (Id. at 4.)
Nevertheless, at a routine U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) check-in
on October 11, 2025, Petitioner was detained by ICE, without notice, explanation, or an
opportunity to be heard. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner states: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) had not identified any material change in circumstances; they did not claim she was a
danger to the community or a flight risk; and Petitioner had not violated any condition, committed
any crime, or failed to appear. (Id.) Since Petitioner has been detained, no immigration judge has
conducted a custody hearing. (Id.)
Petitioner had been detained for nearly three months without a hearing, when she
challenged the lawfulness of her civil detention. (See ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On January 2, 2026,
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) and a motion for TRO (ECF No.
2). On January 3, 2026, the Court granted a TRO and ordered injunctive relief including
Petitioner’s immediate release from detention. (ECF No. 4.) Respondents state that Petitioner
has been released. (ECF No. 7 at 1.) Now that the Court has heard from Respondents, it
determines whether the relief granted in the TRO should continue as a preliminary injunction.
///
///
1 The instant factual background is taken largely verbatim from Petitioner’s brief in support
of her motion for TRO. (ECF No. 2.) Respondents did not dispute these facts. (See ECF No. 7.)
Case 1:26-cv-00010-TLN-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
II. STANDARD OF LAW
For a preliminary injunction, courts consider whether a petitioner has established “[1] that
[s]he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that [s]he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in [her] favor, and [4] that an
injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Petitioner must “make a showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test. Alliance for the Wild
Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
In evaluating a petitioner’s motion, a district court may weigh petitioner’s showings on
the Winter elements using a sliding-scale approach. Id. A stronger showing on the balance of the
hardships may support issuing a preliminary injunction even where the petitioner shows that there
are “serious questions on the merits . . . so long as the [petitioner] also shows that there is a
likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. Simply put, a
petitioner must demonstrate, “that [if] serious questions going to the merits were raised [then] the
balance of hardships [must] tip[ ] sharply” in petitioner’s favor to issue the requested preliminary
injunction. Id. at 1134–35.
III. ANALYSIS
This Court has already found that Petitioner established a likelihood of success on each of
the Winter elements sufficient to warrant relief as set forth in the TRO. (ECF No. 4.) Because
the standard for issuing a TRO is “substantially identical” to the standard for issuing a
preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7
(9th Cir. 2001), the Court incorporates its reasoning from the TRO and need not duplicate its
analysis here.
In opposition to the preliminary injunction, Respondents conclude in a single sentence that
they submit “the detention authority” was lawful. The Court notes Respondents dissatisfaction
with its ruling but finds no reason to reconsider its analysis given a dearth of argument or any
new facts, case law, or legal reasoning.
Therefore, to prevent further irreparable harm, the Court issues a preliminary injunction as
set forth below.
Case 1:26-cv-00010-TLN-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from imposing additional restrictions
on Petitioner’s terms of release, unless such restrictions are determined to be necessary at
a pre-deprivation/custody hearing.
2. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining
Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days’ notice
and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral fact-finder where: (a) Respondents show
material changed circumstances demonstrate a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, or (b) Respondents demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. At
any such hearing, Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present.
3. This matter is referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 16, 2026
___________________________________
TROY L. NUNLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00010-TLN-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 4