Kharitonova 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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIA KHARITONOVA,
Petitioner,
v.
SERGIO ALBARRAN, Field Office
Director of the San Francisco Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Office; TODD
LYONS, Acting Director of United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United
States Department of Homeland Security,
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the
United States, acting in their official
capacities,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-01362
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
EX PARTE MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER; AND ORDERING THE
IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF
PETITIONER
Re: ECF Nos. 1, 2
Earlier today, February 13, 2026, Petitioner Maria Kharitonova, a 66-year old woman with
no criminal history in any country, who was legally admitted to the United States more than dozen
years ago and has a pending asylum petition, was arrested and detained without warning by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers. The officers did not have a warrant, nor
is the Court aware of any exigent basis for Ms. Kharitonova’s arrest.
Ms. Kharitonova has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(the “Petition”), and an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order contending that she is
being unlawfully confined in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The
Court finds that the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) are met. The Court also finds that Petitioner is likely to
succeed on the merits of her claims. The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing on

2
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
Northern District of California
this matter. ECF No. 2. The Court ORDERS that the United States IMMEDIATELY
RELEASE PETITIONER FROM CUSTODY TODAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2026.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner Kharitonova is a 66-year-old, full-time nanny for a family in San Francisco. She
manages her significant health challenges by taking two medications twice daily. Petitioner was
arrested by ICE officers at around 9 a.m. on Friday, February 13, 2026, outside her employer’s
home as she walked to work. The officer provided neither an arrest warrant nor an explanation for
her arrest, other than she was “in removal proceedings.” Her counsel understands her to be
currently detained 630 Sansome Street in San Francisco.
Petitioner Kharitonova has been in removal proceedings for over ten years. Petitioner was
lawfully admitted to the United States on a visitor visa on December 5, 2012. She applied for
asylum on July 18, 2014, and has an asylum hearing scheduled on December 22, 2026. The
government started to process her asylum application, took her biometrics, referred her asylum
case to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), and has advised her to appear at
multiple hearings over several years. She has attended all scheduled hearings, resided
continuously in the United States, and has strong community ties to the San Francisco Bay Area.
Petitioner has no criminal history in the United States or anywhere else.
II. 	ANALYSIS
The Court has reviewed Ms. Kharitonova’s petition. To the Court, it is inexplicable why a
66-year-old woman who has been here since 2012 and has no criminal history has been detained
without a hearing. The Court finds that the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order
without notice set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) are met in this case. Petitioner’s
attorney has set out specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage
may result before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.
The Court finds that Petitioner has shown at least that there are “serious questions going to
the merits” and that “the balance of hardships tips sharply” in her favor. Friends of the Wild Swan
v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or

3
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
Northern District of California
property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. “Freedom from imprisonment—
from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the
liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001) (citing Foucha v.
Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)).
This Court finds that the three factors relevant to the due process inquiry set out in
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)—“the private interest that will be affected by the
official action,” “the risk of an erroneous deprivation . . . and the probable value, if any, of
additional or substitute procedural safeguards,” and “the Government’s interest, including the
function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute
procedural requirement would entail,” id. at 335—require that Petitioner be immediately released
from custody, and that she be given notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral
decisionmaker prior to being taken back into custody. Petitioner has a substantial private interest
in remaining out of custody, which would allow her to take her medications, care for herself, and
to continue her employment. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order. ECF No. 2. In this case, in light of the minimal risk of harm to the government, the Court
determines that security is not required.
To provide an opportunity for a fair and orderly consideration of this matter and resolve
any contested issues about jurisdiction, and unless otherwise ordered by the Court, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
• 	Respondents are ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE PETITIONER
FROM CUSTODY TODAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2026. Respondents are
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner without notice and a
pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and from removing her
from the United States. Petitioner shall not be deported, removed, or otherwise
transferred outside the United States until further Order of this Court.
• 	Respondents shall answer or otherwise respond to the Petition later than February

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
17, 2026. Respondents are DIRECTED to address in their response why their
actions are not enjoined and in direct violation of this Court’s and other recent
decisions by courts around the nation, including the preliminary injunction issued
in Garro Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-cv-05632 PCP, 2025 WL 3691938 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 19, 2025). In addition, Respondents are DIRECTED to report the exact time
on February 13, 2026, that Petitioner was released in a status report filed no later
than noon on February 14, 2026.
• The Court will hold a hearing on Petitioner Kharitonova’s motion on Thursday,
February 19, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be conducted via Zoom
video conference.
• In the time before the hearing, the parties are ORDERED to meet confer to see if
they can resolve this matter without further judicial intervention.
This Order shall remain in effect until February 19, 2026, at 8:00 p.m. The Clerk of
the Court shall serve this Order via email on Pamela Johann, Chief of the Civil Division of the
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, at pamela.johann@usdoj.gov.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge