Aguirre-Sepulveda v. Moreno-Mireles et al

1
26cv573-LL-DDL
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JORGE MANUEL AGUIRRE
SEPULVEDA, NOEMI ESTEFANIA
MORENO MIRELES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney
General, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26cv573-LL-DDL
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
[ECF No. 3]
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Jorge Manuel Aguirre Sepulveda and Noemi Estefania
Moreno Mireles’ Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 3
(“TRO”)] 	precluding Immigration 	and Customs 	Enforcement (ICE) from detaining
Plaintiff Sepulveda at his adjustment-of-status interview on February 10, 2026 at the
USCIS San Diego Field Office “and then removing Plaintiff, and, if that would happen, for
his immediate release.” TRO at 3. Defendants filed an Opposition. ECF No. 6 (“Oppo.”).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.
The purpose of a temporary restraining order (TRO) is to preserve the status quo and
prevent irreparable harm until a preliminary injunction may be held. Granny Goose Foods,
Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423,
Case 3:26-cv-00573-LL-DDL Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26cv573-LL-DDL
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
439 (1974). The legal standard for a TRO and a preliminary injunction is “substantially
identical.” Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7
(9th Cir. 2001). The party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) he is
likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in
the public interest. City & Cty. of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship & Immigr.
Servs., 944 F.3d 773, 789 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). In the Ninth Circuit, the court may apply a sliding scale test in
which “serious questions going to the merits” and a balance of hardships that tips sharply
toward the moving party can support the issuance of a preliminary injunction, as long as
there is also a showing of a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the
public interest. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to show that Plaintiff Sepulveda is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes
declarations from two attorneys whose clients were arrested at their adjustment-of-status
interviews in November and December 2025 at the USCIS field office in San Diego. ECF
No. 3 at 23–29. Plaintiff also includes news reports from November and December 2025
describing ICE arrests of applicants at their adjustment-of-status interviews at the USCIS
field office in San Diego. Id. at 31–47. Although there have been similarly situated people
who have been arrested, there is no indication of whether such an arrest is likely to happen
to him. In fact, Defendant states that “Plaintiff Aguirre Sepulveda has not been identified
by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) San Diego as subject for arrest or
detention.” Oppo. at 3, 4. While Defendants have not confirmed whether ICE intends to
arrest or detain Plaintiff Sepulveda during his USCIS interview, Defendants also state that
“ERO San Diego does not have planned enforcement operations at the USCIS San Diego
Field Office on February 10, 2026.” Id. at 4. Moreover, the “most recent arrest occurred on
December 17, 2025” [id.], implying that there have been no arrests in January 2026.
Case 3:26-cv-00573-LL-DDL Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26cv573-LL-DDL
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
Thus, without more concrete or individualized facts about the likelihood of
Plaintiff’s arrest and detention, the Court cannot enjoin Defendants. See Winter, 555 U.S.
at 22 (“Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is
inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report on or before Friday, February 13, 2026
setting forth the parties’ position concerning whether the Court still has jurisdiction over
the complaint, especially considering whether Plaintiff was detained at his adjustment of
status interview.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00573-LL-DDL Document 7 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3