Toledo Hernandez v. Bondi et al

1
26cv0036-LL-MMP
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
DANIELA M. TOLEDO HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney
General, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26cv0036-LL-MMP
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
[ECF No. 3]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniela M. Toledo Hernandez’s Ex Parte Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order precluding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
from detaining Plaintiff at her adjustment-of-status interview on January 14, 2026 at the
USCIS San Diego Field Office “and then removing Plaintiff, and, if that would happen, for
her immediate release.” ECF No. 3 at 3. Respondents filed an Opposition. ECF No. 6. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 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,
439 (1974). The legal standard for a TRO and a preliminary injunction is “substantially
Case 3:26-cv-00036-LL-MMP Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26cv0036-LL-MMP
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
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 Plaintiff has failed to show that she is likely to suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Plaintiff’s counsel includes declarations from
herself regarding three similarly situated applicants who were arrested at their adjustment-
of-status interviews in December 2025 at the USCIS field office in San Diego [ECF No. 3
at 26–27] and another attorney regarding an ICE arrest she witnessed at an adjustment-of-
status interview on November 12, 2025 [ECF No. 3 at 23] at the USCIS field office in San
Diego. Plaintiff also includes news reports primarily from December 2025 describing ICE
arrests of applicants at their adjustment-of-status interviews at the USCIS field office in
San Diego. ECF No. 3 at 31–47. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that such an
arrest is likely to happen to her. Although there have been similarly situated people who
have been arrested, there is no indication of whether the majority of applicants are arrested
or not. 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
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-00036-LL-MMP Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26cv0036-LL-MMP
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
(“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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00036-LL-MMP Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3