Duong v. Kaiser, 4:25-cv-07598

Petitioner Rachana Duong is a long‑time lawful permanent resident who entered the U.S. as a refugee and has lived in the U.S. since childhood; he was previously convicted of crimes, paroled in 2020, and then released on bond by ICE.
Since his 2020 release, Duong complied with bail/ICE reporting, pursued immigration relief, worked with community organizations, and has chronic respiratory issues.
On September 6, 2025, ICE agents came to Duong’s home in Fremont, told him there was an issue with his photo and asked him outside, then detained him.
Duong filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking immediate release and a pre‑detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
The court found Rule 65(b) ex parte requirements met, concluded Duong likely will succeed on the merits of his due‑process claim, would suffer irreparable harm if detained, and that the balance of equities/public interest favors relief.
The court ordered Duong’s immediate release, enjoined re‑detention or removal without notice and a pre‑deprivation hearing, and set a show‑cause hearing and briefing schedule; the TRO remains effective until September 20, 2025 at 5 p.m.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ex parte TRO without notice was justified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)	Immediate detention would cause irreparable harm before notice could be given; counsel attempted to notify DOJ	Government had no opportunity to be heard before release	Court granted ex parte TRO; Rule 65(b) requirements satisfied
Whether Duong is likely to succeed on the merits of a Fifth Amendment due‑process claim	Duong has a protected liberty interest in remaining released on bond and is entitled to notice and a pre‑detention hearing under Mathews balancing	Government asserts authority to re‑detain/remove without additional pre‑deprivation procedure	Court found Duong likely to succeed; Mathews factors favor pre‑detention hearing and release
Whether irreparable harm exists absent relief	Deprivation of constitutional liberty constitutes irreparable injury; Duong would lose liberty and community ties	Government would suffer administrative inconvenience from brief delay	Court held irreparable harm shown; no further showing required when constitutional rights implicated
Whether balance of equities and public interest support injunctive relief	Public interest favors protecting procedural safeguards and preventing unlawful detention; harm to government is minimal	Government interest in enforcing immigration laws and detaining when warranted	Court found equities and public interest weigh heavily for Duong; TRO granted

Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (TRO and preliminary injunction standards substantially identical)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four‑factor preliminary injunction test)
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2018) (scope and limits of preliminary relief)
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (TRO limited to preserving status quo until hearing)
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (constitutional protections apply to noncitizens)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three‑part test for required procedural protections)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (when government is opposing party, two equitable factors merge)
Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) (deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury)
Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (constitutional violations and irreparable harm)
Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1983) (government not harmed by injunction preventing constitutional violations)