Maliwat v. Scott, 2:25-cv-00788

Nehral Maliwat, a Philippine native and U.S. lawful permanent resident (LPR) since 2007, was detained at the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center (NWIPC) for about ten months after returning from a trip to Mexico in 2024, due to a previous serious criminal conviction (rape by force).
Upon reentry, Maliwat was classified as inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act based on his criminal conviction, and removal proceedings were initiated.
Multiple requests for release and bond hearings were denied by immigration authorities and judges, citing lack of jurisdiction and public safety concerns.
Maliwat sought emergency relief from federal court through a writ of habeas corpus and a temporary restraining order (TRO), arguing his prolonged detention violated due process rights.
The motion also included a request to seal documents containing sensitive personal information, which was not opposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 10 months’ detention without a bond hearing violates due process (Fifth Amendment)	Maliwat argued detention is unreasonably prolonged, violating due process; asked for release or a bond hearing	Respondents argued detention is authorized by statute, not unusually long in immigration context	The court held Maliwat did not meet the high bar for emergency relief; only one Banda factor favored him
Appropriateness of a temporary restraining order for immediate release	Maliwat argued irreparable harm, likelihood of success, public interest in release	Respondents argued none of the Winter factors were met for a mandatory injunction	Court denied the TRO, finding insufficient grounds for immediate injunctive relief
Whether conditions at NWIPC constituted punitive detention warranting relief	Maliwat claimed detention conditions were worse than criminal custody, supporting due process violation	No substantive response by Respondents on conditions; argued removal proceedings proceeded appropriately	Court found NWIPC conditions weighed in Maliwat’s favor, but not dispositively
Motion to seal sensitive appendices	Maliwat requested sealing to protect privacy of personal, medical, financial info	No opposition to the motion to seal	Court granted the motion, sealing the appendices

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (establishes standard for preliminary injunctions and TROs: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, equities, public interest)
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1974) (TROs preserve the status quo only temporarily)
Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (mandatory injunctions require a higher showing than prohibitive ones)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (U.S. 2018) (INA authorizes detention without time limits or periodic bond hearings)
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (sealing court records requires compelling reasons)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (strong presumption in favor of access to court records)