792 F.Supp.3d 1025
N.D. Cal.2025Background
- Plaintiff, Frescia Garro Pinchi, is a Peruvian asylum-seeker residing in California who entered the U.S. in April 2023 and was released on her own recognizance by ICE for humanitarian reasons.
- She has no criminal history, has complied fully with all immigration requirements, and is the sole provider for her family, including dependents in Peru.
- Garro Pinchi suffers from several serious medical conditions requiring ongoing care.
- In July 2025, after more than two years out of custody, she was detained by ICE as she left an immigration court hearing; the government intends to pursue expedited removal rather than finish her previous removal proceedings.
- Upon detention, she sought emergency relief in federal court; the court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring her release and a hearing on converting the TRO to a preliminary injunction was held.
- The court now addresses whether to grant a preliminary injunction prohibiting her re-detention without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due Process Right to Pre-detention Hearing | She has a liberty interest requiring a hearing before re-detention | No due process right to pre-detention hearing under §1226(a); interests minimal | Due process requires a pre-detention hearing |
| Risk of Irreparable Harm | Immediate risk of unconstitutional detention, health and economic harms | Post-detention bond hearing is sufficient; no irreparable harm | Irreparable harm exists due to risk of unconstitutional detention |
| Balance of Equities | Hardship on liberty, health, and family outweighs any gov’t inconvenience | Any burden is justified by need for immigration enforcement | Balance tips in plaintiff’s favor |
| Public Interest | Upholding constitutional rights is always in the public interest | Delay in government enforcement is a real harm | Public interest favors upholding constitutional protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (Due Process Clause applies to all persons in U.S., including noncitizens, regarding liberty interests)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (setting forth standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (conditional liberty interests of parolees and procedural due process requirements)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (general principle that a hearing is required prior to deprivation of liberty)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (merger of equity and public interest analysis when gov’t is a party on injunctions)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.) (deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm)