Omar Sanchez Ruiz v. Warden
5:25-cv-02486
| C.D. Cal. | Sep 23, 2025Background
- Petitioner Gloria Sanchez is a Mexican citizen detained by ICE in Adelanto, California, with a history of removal orders and an Order of Supervision since 2008.
- Sanchez was re-detained by ICE in Santa Ana on September 19, 2025, and alleges she did not receive notice of the intent to re-detain or reasons for revoking supervision.
- DHS policy memo (March 2025) allows removal to third countries without further procedures if diplomatic assurances against persecution or torture are obtained; otherwise ICE will not inquire about fear of removal to that country.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition and an ex parte TRO application seeking (a) to prevent removal outside the district, (b) notice and hearing before third-country removal, and (c) release on an Order of Supervision pending removal foreseeability.
- The court granted in part, enjoining third-country removal without written notice and a hearing, and scheduled a hearing on a preliminary injunction while denying other relief.
- The court found likelihood of success or serious questions on the third-country removal notice issue and irreparable harm from removal to a country where persecution or torture could occur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a TRO may bar transfer outside the district. | Sanchez argues transfer jeopardizes rights and access to counsel; irreparable harm presumed from potential removal. | Respondents argue district transfer is permissible under habeas jurisdiction and does not create irreparable harm. | TRO issued to address third-country removal procedures; transfer outside district not barred on irreparable-harm grounds. |
| Whether removal to a third country without notice violates due process or statute. | DHS removal without notice risks persecution or torture with no opportunity to raise fear-based claims. | Respondents rely on policy permitting removal with possibly minimal procedures if diplomatic assurances exist. | Petitioner shows likelihood of success and irreparable harm; notice and opportunity to be heard required before third-country removal. |
| Whether detention beyond a presumptively reasonable period violates due process. | Detention beyond six months and beyond 90-day removal period violates due process. | Detention beyond six months requires evidence that removal is reasonably foreseeable; petition prematurity. | Premature as to six-month detention claim absent evidence of detention beyond six months. |
| Whether the balance of equities and public interest favor TRO for third-country removal notice. | Protecting constitutional rights and ensuring due process outweigh administrative efficiency concerns. | No significant harm to government; public interest in immigration enforcement. | Balance tips sharply in petitioner's favor; TRO granted on notice requirements for third-country removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (TRO standard mirrors preliminary injunction standard)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (four-factor Winter test or serious-question alternative)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (merges final two Winter factors against government)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. 2001) (distinguishes detention from release under supervision; six-month presumptively reasonable period)
- Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1990) (courts retain jurisdiction over habeas petitions after custodial changes)
- Baird v. Bonta, 81 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2023) (constitutional rights protection favors movant; public-interest factor)