Gudino v. Lowe
1:25-cv-00571
M.D. Penn.Apr 21, 2025Background
- Petitioner, Kleiber Alexander Arias Gudino, is a Venezuelan national with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) but was detained by ICE on March 14, 2025, first for an alleged Order of Supervision violation and later after his TPS was withdrawn.
- The detention followed an FBI raid at an address where Arias Gudino lived, allegedly connected to a Venezuelan gang (Tren de Aragua), which he denies involvement with.
- Arias Gudino challenges his detention as unlawful, citing statutory bars to detaining TPS holders and alleged violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights.
- Respondents (ICE and DHS officials) argue his detention was due to violations of supervision (not his immigration status) and, after April 14, due to his TPS withdrawal for alleged national security concerns.
- Arias Gudino filed a habeas petition and sought a preliminary injunction for release pending final immigration proceedings.
- The legal context includes changing TPS policies for Venezuelans, recent executive actions, and litigation restricting removals under certain statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawful detention of a TPS holder for supervision order violation | Detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(d)(4), as TPS holders may not be detained based on immigration status | Detention is for violation of supervision rules, not immigration status; permissible under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 | Detention allowed for supervision order violations; no likely success for Gudino on this claim |
| Detention after TPS withdrawal | TPS withdrawal did not remove Gudino’s right not to be detained pending appeal | Only work authorization and stay of removal remain after withdrawal/appeal; non-detention not a benefit | Non-detention is not a statutory or regulatory benefit post-TPS withdrawal; no likely success for Gudino |
| Substantive due process violation | Detention not rationally tied to any legitimate purpose; no foreseeable removal | Violation of conditions tied to community safety risk; limited, legal detention | Detention based on supervision violation is rationally related to government interests; no likely success for Gudino |
| Procedural due process violation (notice/opportunity) | No notice at detention or meaningful ability to challenge it, high risk of erroneous deprivation | Gudino received notice nearly one month later and had chance to contest | Notice was untimely; high risk of error; likelihood of success for Gudino on this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S. 409 (scope and benefits of Temporary Protected Status)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (limits on immigration detention when removal is not reasonably foreseeable)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (detention during removal proceedings and due process)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three-part test for procedural due process)
- Marshak v. Treadwell, 240 F.3d 184 (statutory interpretation framework)
- Highmark, Inc. v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 276 F.3d 160 (preliminary injunction standards)