Castro et al v. Noem et al

1
3:25-cv-03808-CAB-KSC
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROSAURA SOTO CASTRO, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-03808-CAB-KSC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
On December 27, 2025, Rosaura Soto Castro, Mateo Brandi Soto and Daria Moe
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) based on their belief that they may be detained at
their upcoming adjustment of status interviews with United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on January 7, 2026. 	[Doc. No. 1 at 11–12.] 	Plaintiffs
additionally filed a motion for an ex parte emergency temporary restraining order (“TRO”)
and order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction. 	[Doc. No. 3.] 	In both,
Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin Defendants from “arresting, detaining, or removing
Plaintiffs in connection with their USCIS adjustment of status interview scheduled for
January 7, 2026[.]” [Doc. No. 3 at 2.] For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the
motion for an ex parte TRO.
[Doc. No. 3.]
Case 3:25-cv-03808-CAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-03808-CAB-KSC
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
A TRO, like all injunctive relief, “is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). 	The legal standard
for issuing a TRO is essentially identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary
injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7
(9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs must meet either the Winter test or the Ninth Circuit’s “serious
questions” test. 	Under the Winter standard, a party must show that they are likely to
succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is
in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Under the Ninth Circuit’s “serious questions”
test, a “sliding scale variant of the Winter test, if a plaintiff can only show that there are
serious questions going to the merits—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the
merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips
sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” All. For the
Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (emphasis in original).
Here, Plaintiffs have not satisfied either test because they have not shown that they
are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief[.]” 	See Winter,
555 U.S. at 20 (emphasis added). 	They assert that “ICE has recently begun arresting
individuals attending USCIC interviews for adjustment . . . creating a credible threat of
arrest to Plaintiffs.” [Doc. No. 1 at 11.] According to Plaintiffs, they “will suffer severe
and irreparable harm if arrested at their January 7, 2026 interviews.” [Doc. No. 3-1 at 14.]
Beyond these general allegations, Plaintiffs do not cite to any actual policies, practices, or
individualized communications demonstrating that Plaintiffs are likely to be illegally
detained at their upcoming interviews. [See generally Doc. Nos. 1, 3.] Similarly, Plaintiffs
do not cite any final agency action to form the basis of a claim under the APA, which
permits judicial review of final agency action. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871,
882 (1990).
///
Case 3:25-cv-03808-CAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-03808-CAB-KSC
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
“Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is
inconsistent with [the] characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”
Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 	Thus, without more concrete or individualized facts about the
likelihood 	of 	Plaintiffs’ 	detention, 	the 	court 	will 	not 	enjoin 	Defendants 	based 	on
speculation. Plaintiffs’ motion for an ex parte TRO is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs may
pursue their underlying civil complaint by properly serving Defendants.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03808-CAB-KSC Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3