Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PAULO CESAR BARZOLA-ARIAS,
Petitioner,
-against-
KENNETH GENALO, in his official capacity as
New York Field Office Director for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD
LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director,
United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, in her official
capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI, in her
official capacity as United States Attorney
General; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
26-CV-327
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING
ORDER
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS, 	Petitioner 	is 	presently 	detained 	by 	Respondents 	at 	the
Metropolitan Detention Center, and has been detained by Respondents there since
being taken into custody by Respondents on or about December 15 or 16, 2025;
WHEREAS, Petitioner avers that he is a noncitizen who has resided in the
United States since 2004 in the State of New York;
WHEREAS, Petitioner has alleged a violation of his right to be free from
unlawful detention under the United States Constitution, which is sufficient to
Case 1:26-cv-00327-NRM Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
demonstrate irreparable harm. See Veletanga v. Noem, No. 25 CV 9211 (NSR), 2025
WL 3751865, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2025);
WHEREAS, Petitioner avers that Respondents failed to provide him with a
pre-detention bond hearing pursuant to Respondents’ policy dated July 8, 2025 and
entitled 	“Interim 	Guidance 	Regarding 	Detention 	Authority 	for 	Applicants 	for
Admission”;
WHEREAS, through counsel, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus (the “Petition”), ECF No. 1 (Jan. 20, 2026), alleging that his detention violates
his constitutional and statutory rights;
WHEREAS, Petitioner has moved for entry of a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 1 at 8, ¶ 37, seeking an order directing
Petitioner’s immediate release from detention and restraining Respondents from re-
detaining Petitioner for the pendency of the Court’s adjudication of the underlying
Petition;
WHEREAS, the Court finds that Petitioner has established a likelihood of
success on the merits that Petitioner’s detention without a bond hearing violates his
Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process because Petitioner has lived in the
United States for twenty one years and is therefore entitled to an individualized, pre-
Case 1:26-cv-00327-NRM Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
detention bond hearing under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), see, e.g., Hyppolite v. Noem, 25 CV 4303 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511, at *12–
16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025); Artiga v. Genalo, No. 25 CV 5208 (OEM), 2025 WL
2829434, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2025); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475,
498–99 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025); Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25 CV 05240 (TMC), 2025
WL 2782499, at *16–26 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 30, 2025); Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25
CV 06924 (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *6–13 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2025); Belsai D.S.
v. Bondi, No. 25 CV 3682, 2025 WL 2802947, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025) (collecting
cases). 	Similarly, the Court finds that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of
his claim that the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) and (b)(2)
are inapplicable here, because Petitioner has been living continuously in the United
States and is not “seeking admission” under Section 1225;
WHEREAS, Respondents have averred that they are presently detaining
Petitioner under the authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). 	ECF No. 4 at 1. 	While
Respondents take the position that such detention is lawful, they acknowledge that,
in its decision in Hyppolite, 2025 WL 2829511, this Court previously considered and
rejected Respondents’ claims as to the application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to
Case 1:26-cv-00327-NRM Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
persons similarly situated to Mr. Barzola-Arias, ECF No. 4 at 3–4, potentially
obviating the need for further briefing as to that dispositive legal issue in this case;
WHEREAS, the Court hereby incorporates by reference its earlier analysis of
these issues in Hyppolite, 2025 WL 2829511, at *6–16, and adheres to the reasoning
of that decision and the near-unanimous conclusion reached by hundreds of other
district courts nationwide who have considered the issue to date. Cf. Resp., ECF No.
4 at 2 n.2 (citing the decisions of three district courts within the Second Circuit
adopting Respondents’ analysis);
WHEREAS, the Court also finds that Petitioner has established that there is
a 	high 	risk 	of 	erroneous 	deprivation 	of 	his 	liberty 	interest 	under 	the 	Fifth
Amendment if temporary injunctive relief is not granted. See, e.g., Velasco Lopez v.
Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 851 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting that “the most significant liberty
interest” recognized under the Constitution is “the interest in being free from
imprisonment”). The Court has weighed the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319 (1976), which applies when courts in the Second Circuit are called upon to
determine “the adequacy of process in the context of civil immigration confinement.”
Munoz Materano v. Artera, No. 25 CV 6137, 2025 WL 2630826, at *12 (S.D.N.Y., Sep.
12, 2025). 	Having considered (1) the private interest that will be affected by the
Case 1:26-cv-00327-NRM Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
official action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the
procedures 	used; 	and 	(3) 	the 	government's 	interest, 	including 	the 	fiscal 	and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail, see
Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, the Court finds that the balance of interests weighs heavily
in favor of Petitioner’s immediate release from detention, and that he will be
irreparably harmed if a Temporary Restraining Order is not granted.
It is hereby:
ORDERED, that Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65 is GRANTED;
ORDERED, that the Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect
until 5:00 PM on February 6, 2026, unless it is extended by further Order of this
Court for good cause shown or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2);
ORDERED, that Respondents must release Petitioner from custody no later
than 11:59 AM on Saturday, January 24, 2026. 	Respondents, through counsel,
shall file a letter on the docket no later than 3:00 PM on that same date
(Saturday, January 24, 2026), confirming that Petitioner has been released from
custody, 	and 	shall 	send 	a 	courtesy 	copy 	of 	that 	letter 	by 	electronic 	mail 	to
Case 1:26-cv-00327-NRM Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
morrison_chambers@nyed.uscourts.gov 	and to 	Petitioner’s 	counsel 	at 	the 	email
address listed in the Petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from re-
detaining Petitioner, absent prior authorization of this Court and a pre-deprivation
bond hearing, while the terms of this Order otherwise remain in effect;
ORDERED, Petitioner’s January 26, 2026 deadline to file a reply and the
hearing scheduled for January 27, 2026 are hereby adjourned. Petitioner may, but is
not required to, file a reply to Respondents’ opposition and any supporting declaration
or exhibits relevant to the merits of the petition and any relief sought on or before
3:00 PM on February 5, 2026. 	Further, Petitioner may submit a letter on or before
3:00 PM on February 5, 2026 requesting this Temporary Restraining Order be
extended for good cause.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2026 	/s/ Nina R. Morrison
Brooklyn, New York 	Nina R. Morrison
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00327-NRM Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>