A.F.A.M. v. Albarran et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
A.F.A.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
SERGIO ALBARRAN, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 25-cv-10492-AMO
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Re: Dkt. No. 1
Before the Court is Petitioner A.F.A.M.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Having read
the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and
good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner is an asylum seeker who was detained at an Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) check-in on December 3, 2025. Dkt. No. 2-1 at 6. Petitioner filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. No. 1, and a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”),
Dkt. No. 2, on December 6, 2025. The next day, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for a TRO,
and ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from Respondents’ custody pending
full briefing and hearing on the underlying petition and/or a preliminary injunction regarding re-
detention. Dkt. No. 4. The Court ordered Respondents to show cause why a preliminary
injunction should not issue. Id. On December 12, 2025, Respondents filed their response, Dkt.
No. 14, and A.F.A.M.’s reply followed on December 17, 2025, Dkt. No. 15. On December 22,
2025, this Court granted the preliminary injunction that enjoined Respondents “from re-detaining
A.F.A.M. without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an Immigration Judge to evaluate
whether his re-detention is warranted based on changed circumstances establishing A.F.A.M. is a
flight risk or a danger to the community.” Dkt. No. 19 at 9.
Case 4:25-cv-10492-AMO Document 25 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
On January 30, 2026, Respondents filed a return in response to Petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. No. 22. A.F.A.M. filed a traverse on February 27, 2026. Dkt. No. 23.
Respondents’ arguments in the return largely track those presented at the preliminary injunction
stage – they contend that Petitioner is subject to detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). See Dkt. Nos. 22 at 9-11, 14 at 5-7. Because Respondents have not provided
the Court with new argument, the Court incorporates its order on Petitioner’s preliminary
injunction, Dkt. No. 19, here. Respondents additionally urge the Court not to enjoin Respondents
from transferring Petitioner outside this district and argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
enjoining Respondents from removing Petitioner pending these proceedings. The Court does not
reach the merits of either of these arguments because they are moot as of this order’s issuance.
For the reasons stated in the order on Petitioner’s preliminary injunction, the Court
ORDERS as follows:
a. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.
b. Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining
A.F.A.M. without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an Immigration Judge to
evaluate whether his re-detention is warranted based on changed circumstances
establishing A.F.A.M. is a flight risk or a danger to the community and that no conditions
other than his detention would be sufficient to prevent such harms.
c. The Clerk of the Court SHALL close the case.
Judgment will be entered in favor of Petitioner separately pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2026
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-10492-AMO Document 25 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2