Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daniela M. Toledo Hernandez had a scheduled adjustment-of-status interview at the USCIS San Diego Field Office on January 14, 2026. An adjustment-of-status interview is the standard step in the process by which a noncitizen who is already physically present in the United States seeks to become a lawful permanent resident (a “green-card holder”). Going to the interview puts the applicant in a federal building where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) personnel are also present.
Toledo Hernandez asked the federal court for an emergency temporary restraining order (“TRO”) forbidding ICE from arresting her at the interview and from removing her if it did. To support her request, her counsel submitted declarations describing several other people who had been arrested at adjustment-of-status interviews at the same San Diego USCIS office in late 2025, plus news reports about a series of similar arrests at the office. The government opposed.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the TRO. Under the standard set out in the Supreme Court’s Winter v. NRDC decision and Ninth Circuit cases, a TRO requires the moving party to show four things: a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without preliminary relief, a balance of equities tipping in its favor, and that an injunction would be in the public interest. The Ninth Circuit also recognizes a “sliding scale” version of the test that allows preliminary relief based on “serious questions going to the merits” if the equities tip sharply in the plaintiff’s favor — but irreparable harm and a public-interest finding still must be shown.
The court found Toledo Hernandez had not shown likely irreparable harm. Although her counsel documented several arrests of similarly situated applicants at the same San Diego USCIS office, the evidence did not establish how often such arrests happened relative to the total number of interviews. Without data showing a high probability that she individually would be arrested, the court could not grant the extraordinary remedy of preliminary relief.
The court invoked Winter’s strict rule against preliminary relief based only on the “possibility” of irreparable harm. “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our 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.”
Key Takeaways
- To obtain a TRO blocking enforcement action, a plaintiff must do more than show that similar enforcement actions have happened to others. The plaintiff must produce concrete, individualized evidence that the enforcement action is likely in her own case.
- News reports and counsel declarations about other people’s arrests can provide context but generally do not satisfy Winter‘s requirement of a clear showing of likely irreparable harm.
- The Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale test still requires irreparable harm. The merits cannot be litigated in lieu of harm.
- This decision joins a small but growing line of California TRO orders addressing reports of ICE arrests at USCIS interviews. Plaintiffs face a difficult evidentiary task in showing arrest is likely in their individual case.
Why It Matters
Reports of ICE arrests at adjustment-of-status interviews have raised significant concern among immigrants and their lawyers in the Southern District of California. This decision shows the practical difficulty of obtaining preemptive court relief against such arrests under existing TRO standards. Courts will not enjoin enforcement based on the existence of a pattern alone; they want individualized evidence of likelihood.
For California immigration practitioners, the case illustrates both the limits and the contours of preliminary relief in this area. Plaintiffs may need to gather and present additional evidence — for example, statistical data on the frequency of arrests at a particular field office, documentation of a specific government statement targeting the applicant, or proof of a prior contact establishing intent — before seeking a TRO of this kind.