Quezada Grado et al v. Bondi et al

1
25-CV-3833 JLS (MMP)
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
ANGEL ALEJANDRO QUEZADA
GRADO AND QINCHUAN LIU
CHAMBERS,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney
General, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-CV-3833 JLS (MMP)
ORDER:
(1) DISMISSING PETITION AND
COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION, AND
(2) DENYING EX PARTE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
(ECF Nos. 1, 3)
Presently before the Court is Angel Alejandro Quezada Grado’s and Qinchuan Liu
Chambers’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1) and Angel Alejandro Quezada Grado’s Ex Parte Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 3). 	For the reasons that follow, the Court
DISMISSES the Petition and Complaint (ECF No. 1) and DENIES the TRO Motion (ECF
No. 3).
On December 30, 2026, Petitioners Quezada Grado and Liu Chambers filed a
Complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241, to which
Case 3:25-cv-03833-JLS-MMP Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
25-CV-3833 JLS (MMP)
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
the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 2), requiring Respondents to file a
return by January 14, 2026, and Petitioners to file a traverse by January 21, 2026. See ECF
No. 2. 	Petitioners seek “declaratory and injunctive relief preventing ICE from arresting
them in connection with their scheduled interviews and setting aside [ICE’s] arrest-at-
interview policy as unlawful.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 6. Petitioners also seek to prevent Respondents
from “unlawfully detaining Petitioners thereafter . . . without first providing each of them
with an individualized due process hearing . . . .” 	Id. 	Petitioner Quezada Grado has an
adjustment of status interview with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
scheduled for January 6, 2026. Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner Liu Chambers likewise has an adjustment
of status interview scheduled for February 5, 2026. Id. ¶ 4.
Petitioner Quezada Grado filed a TRO Motion on January 2, 2026. 	See generally
Docket. Petitioner submits that he fears imminent arrest or detention by ICE at his USCIS
interview based on “[r]ecent enforcement actions” in which ICE “has begun arresting
individuals at USCIS field offices during or immediately following adjustment of status
interviews . . . .” 	ECF No. 3-1 ¶ 2. 	Therefore, Petitioner seeks an order preventing his
arrest. ECF No. 3 ¶ 10.
The Court rejects Petitioners’ requests for relief because the case is not ripe for
review, and the Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction.1 “For a case to be ripe, it must
present issues that are ‘definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract.’” Bishop Paiute
Tribe 	v. 	Inyo 	Cnty., 	863 	F.3d 	1144, 	1153 	(9th 	Cir. 	2017) 	(quoting
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rts. Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)). 	“If a
case is not ripe for review, then there is no case or controversy, and the court lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction.” Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 394 F.3d 665, 669 (9th Cir. 2005).
1 The Court also notes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because Petitioners are not
“in custody.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (“The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . .
[h]e is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States . . . .”).
Case 3:25-cv-03833-JLS-MMP Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
25-CV-3833 JLS (MMP)
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
Here, Petitioners’ pointing to other instances of ICE detaining individuals following
adjustment of status interviews 	does 	not definitively 	and concretely 	establish that
Petitioners will be arrested by ICE at their adjustment of status interviews. 	See ECF No.
1 ¶¶ 50–61; see also Yesica L. Boza v. Pamela Bondi, et al., 25-cv-3526-AGS-SBC, ECF
No. 6 at 1–2 (denying motion for temporary restraining order in connection with
petitioner’s scheduled adjustment of status interview because petitioner “fail[ed] to
establish that she is likely to suffer imminent harm”). 	Because the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the underlying Petition and Complaint, it may not grant Petitioner
Quezada Grado’s request for a temporary restraining order. See, e.g., Sirus v. Washington,
314 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir. 1963); Domingo v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA, No. 19-cv-
5864-ODW (JPRx), 2019 WL 2992012, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2019) (dismissing a request
for TRO where there was no subject matter jurisdiction).
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition and Complaint (ECF No. 1) and
DENIES the TRO Motion (ECF No. 3). The Court VACATES any upcoming deadlines
previously set in this case. The Clerk of the Court SHALL close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03833-JLS-MMP Document 4 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3