Rosaura Soto Castro, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed a complaint and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin their detention during a scheduled USCIS adjustment of status interview. The court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm based on speculation rather than concrete facts.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) denied“Plaintiffs’ motion for an ex parte TRO is therefore DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Winter v. NRDC standard, which requires a showing of irreparable harm. The order notes that Plaintiffs relied on general allegations of a 'credible threat' without citing specific policies, practices, or individualized communications. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a mere possibility of harm is insufficient to justify an extraordinary remedy like a TRO. The court's reliance on the lack of concrete, individualized facts to support the irreparable harm prong is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standards for a TRO and applies them to the specific facts presented. It accurately notes that general allegations of a 'credible threat' are insufficient to meet the irreparable harm requirement of the Winter test. The court's decision to deny the TRO based on the lack of concrete, individualized evidence is consistent with the characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSAURA SOTO CASTRO, et al., Case No.: 3:25-cv-03808-CAB-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 3.] 16 17 On December 27, 2025, Rosaura Soto Castro, Mateo Brandi Soto and Daria Moe 18 (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and violation of the 19 Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) based on their belief that they may be detained at 20 their upcoming adjustment of status interviews with United States Citizenship and 21 Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on January 7, 2026. [Doc. No. 1 at 11–12.] Plaintiffs 22 additionally filed a motion for an ex parte emergency temporary restraining order (“TRO”) 23 and order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 3.] In both, 24 Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin Defendants from “arresting, detaining, or removing 25 Plaintiffs in connection with their USCIS adjustment of status interview scheduled for 26 January 7, 2026[.]” [Doc. No. 3 at 2.] For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the 27 motion for an ex parte TRO. 28 1 A TRO, like all injunctive relief, “is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of 2 right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The legal standard 3 for issuing a TRO is essentially identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary 4 injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 5 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs must meet either the Winter test or the Ninth Circuit’s “serious 6 questions” test. Under the Winter standard, a party must show that they are likely to 7 succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 8 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is 9 in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Under the Ninth Circuit’s “serious questions” 10 test, a “sliding scale variant of the Winter test, if a plaintiff can only show that there are 11 serious questions going to the merits—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the 12 merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips 13 sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” All. For the 14 Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks 15 omitted) (emphasis in original). 16 Here, Plaintiffs have not satisfied either test because they have not shown that they 17 are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief[.]” See Winter, 18 555 U.S. at 20 (emphasis added). They assert that “ICE has recently begun arresting 19 individuals attending USCIC interviews for adjustment . . . creating a credible threat of 20 arrest to Plaintiffs.” [Doc. No. 1 at 11.] According to Plaintiffs, they “will suffer severe 21 and irreparable harm if arrested at their January 7, 2026 interviews.” [Doc. No. 3-1 at 14.] 22 Beyond these general allegations, Plaintiffs do not cite to any actual policies, practices, or 23 individualized communications demonstrating that Plaintiffs are likely to be illegally 24 detained at their upcoming interviews. [See generally Doc. Nos. 1, 3.] Similarly, Plaintiffs 25 do not cite any final agency action to form the basis of a claim under the APA, which 26 permits judicial review of final agency action. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 27 882 (1990). 28 /// 1 “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is 2 inconsistent with [the] characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that 3 ||may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” 4 || Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Thus, without more concrete or individualized facts about the 5 likelihood of Plaintiffs’ detention, the court will not enjoin Defendants based on 6 ||speculation. Plaintiffs’ motion for an ex parte TRO is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs may 7 || pursue their underlying civil complaint by properly serving Defendants. 8 Itis SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: January 5, 2026 (Kyge— 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ll United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28