Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Ambartsoum Pogosian had been re-detained by federal immigration officials and challenged the legality of that re-detention through a habeas corpus petition. The court issued a temporary restraining order on December 31, 2025, ordering his release subject to procedural requirements for any future enforcement. The TRO required the government to comply with specific procedures before any future re-detention.
The government opposed the entry of a preliminary injunction at a January 12, 2026 hearing, arguing the case had become moot once Pogosian was released and that re-detention was now speculative. After supplemental briefing, the court turned to whether to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction.
The Court’s Holding
The court entered a preliminary injunction with the same restraints as the TRO. It rejected mootness, distinguishing the cases the government cited (which involved detainees denied bond hearings) from Pogosian’s situation (re-detention in violation of applicable procedures). Drawing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nielsen v. Preap and recent Central District orders in Pham v. Noem, Cruz v. Lyons, and Esmail v. Noem, the court held that — like the plaintiffs in Nielsen — Pogosian “face[s] the threat of re-arrest and mandatory detention.” The Esmail court’s observation was particularly persuasive: “[w]ere this so, no court would issue a preliminary injunction following the grant of a TRO ordering a habeas petitioner’s release, which is plainly not the case.”
On the merits, the court relied on its prior TRO analysis, which applied the four Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest) and incorporated that reasoning into the preliminary-injunction order. Because the same standard governs both the TRO and preliminary injunction, the court saw no reason to depart from its previous determination.
The injunction restrains the government with “the same restraint as in the TRO”: any future enforcement actions must comply with the required procedures the court outlined. The court noted that the absence of travel documents suggested petitioner was not facing imminent removal, but also noted that if such documents were obtained, petitioner must be given an opportunity to be heard under proper procedures.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petition challenging unlawful re-detention is not moot when the petitioner faces an ongoing threat of re-arrest under the same allegedly unlawful procedures.
- Nielsen v. Preap supports the idea that threatened mandatory detention is sufficient to keep a petition live, even after release.
- The Winter factors govern both TROs and preliminary injunctions, so a court that issued a TRO can ordinarily convert it without re-litigating the underlying merits.
- The Esmail line of reasoning — that mootness doctrine cannot become a tool to defeat the very purpose of injunctive relief following a TRO — is now an established framework in the Central District for immigration re-detention cases.
- Preliminary injunctions in this context typically order the government to comply with required procedures (notice, opportunity to be heard, and a determination by a neutral decisionmaker) before any future re-detention.
Why It Matters
This decision is one in a growing line of Central District of California orders providing strong procedural protections for noncitizens who have been released from immigration detention only to face re-detention without process. By rejecting the government’s mootness argument, the court ensured the preliminary injunction remains in force during the litigation, preventing immigration authorities from immediately re-detaining the petitioner.
For immigration practitioners, the key practical takeaway is the framework — invoking Nielsen v. Preap and the Esmail mootness analysis — to convert TROs into preliminary injunctions. For noncitizens facing surprise re-detention, the case adds to a consistent body of California decisions that treat freedom from procedurally inadequate re-arrest as a cognizable, ongoing harm.