Babakhani v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcment

U n i t e d 	S t a t e s 	D i s t r i c t 	C o u r t
N O R T H E R N 	D I S T R I C T 	O F 	T E X A S
D A L L A S 	D I V I S I O N
§	A L I 	B A B A K H A N I
§
§ 	C I V I L A C T I O N N O . 3 : 2 3 - C V - 0 2 4 4 - S - B T	V .
§
U . S . I M M I G R A T I O N A N D C U S T O M S
E N F O R C E M E N T
§
§
M E M O R A N D U M 	O P I N I O N 	A N D 	O R D E R
Before the Court are five motions filed by Petitioner: Application for Admission Pro Hac
Vice (PEIV) (ECF No. 18); unopposed Motion for Leave to Permit Appearance without Local
Counsel (ECF No. 19); Motion to Revoke Notice to Cancel Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(ECF No. 21); Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (ECF No. 22); and Application for
Order to Show Cause Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 (ECF No. 23). After careful consideration, the
Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs Motion for TRO and further ORDERS as follows.
Background
Petitioner is acitizen and native of Iran. He entered the United States in October 2023
seeking asylum from alleged political persecution. He has been in federal custody since then.
On January 28, 2025, Petitioner filed apro se habeas application. He seeks to have the
Court order his immediate release from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) custody. The Court entered an Order to Show Cause (OSC) on March 4, 2025 requiring
Respondent to answer or file other pleadings in response. On April 21, 2025, Respondent filed its
Response. Petitioner did not file areply.
Rather, Petitioner filed his TRO motion through new counsel on January 23, 2026. He
raises similar argument as those first submitted to the Court by Petitioner in his pro se pleadings.
Case 3:25-cv-00224-S-BT Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

But he now contends that his continued detention warrants aTRO enjoining Respondent from
continuing to detain him.
Legal Standards and Analysis
I . 	T R O
There are four prerequisites for the extraordinary relief of aTRO or preliminary injunction.
To prevail, Petitioner must demonstrate (i) asubstantial likelihood of success on the merits; (ii) a
substantial threat of immediate and irreparable harm, for which he has no adequate remedy at law;
(iii) that greater injiuy will result from denying the TRO than from its being granted; and (iv) that
aTRO will not disserve the public interest. Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991. 993 (5th
Cir. 1987k Canal Author, v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567. 572 (5th Cir. 19741 {en banc). If aparty fails
to meet any of the four requirements, the Court cannot grant the TRO or preliminary injunction. Id.
Petitioner asserts that aTRO is warranted because ICE has continued to hold him “past the
90-day removal period without an opportunity for abond hearing' 	-as well as the presumptively
reasonable period of 180 days. He contends that he will suffer irreparable harm absent aTRO due
to medical issues related to his kidney and mental health concerns.
The Court determines that Petitioner has failed to meet the four requirements for
atemporary restraining order.
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate asubstantial likelihood of success on the merits; that greater
injury will result from denying the temporary restraining order than from its being granted; and
that atemporary restraining order will not disserve the public interest. Petitioner simply states in
aconclusory fashion that he poses no danger to society. He also fails to explain what has changed
since his habeas application became ripe for review such that aTRO is warranted now.
2
Case 3:25-cv-00224-S-BT Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

In sum, Petitioner fails to provide the necessary evidence and legal authority to demonstrate
that he is entitled to TRO. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Petitioner’s Motion
f o r T R O .
I I . 	A d d i t i o n a l 	M o t i o n s
Regarding Petitioner’s additional motions, the Court ORDERS as follows:
●Petitioner’s Application for Admission PHV (ECF No. 18) and unopposed Motion for
Leave to Motion for Leave to Permit Appearance without Local Coxmsel (LCF No. 19) are
G R A N T E D ;
●Petitioner’s Motion to Revoke Notice to Cancel Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (LCF
No. 21) is GRANTED. The Court will address Petitioner’s ripe habeas application in due
c o u r s e ;
●Petitioner’s Application for Order to Show Cause Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 (ECF No.
23) is DENIED as moot. The Court has already entered an OSC and Respondent has filed
aresponse; and
●Petitioner has also filed athird amended petition (ECF No. 20). This filing fails to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. as Respondent has already filed aresponse to
Petitioner’s habeas application. S'ge Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a); also United States v.
Armstrom. 951 F.2d 626. 630 (5th Cir. 1992) (“Because the government had filed its
responsive pleading, ...[petitioner] had no right to amend his [habeas petition] without
leave of Court. ...”). However, the Court notes that Petitioner’s third amended petition
provides additional factual background and raises the same claims for relief as those set
forth in Petitioner’s pro se petitions. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondent, by
February 26, 2026. to file astatus report indicating whether it would prefer (i) for the
Court to consider Respondent’s Response (ECF No. 8) as sufficient to answer Petitioner’s
new petition; or (ii) file an amended response.
S O 	O R D E R E D .
January 27, 2026.
I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T J U D G E
3
Case 3:25-cv-00224-S-BT Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>