{"id":362,"date":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=362"},"modified":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","slug":"toledo-hernandez-bondi-tro-ice-arrest-uscis-interview","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=362","title":{"rendered":"Toledo Hernandez v. Bondi \u2014 S.D. Cal. Denies Emergency TRO to Block Anticipated ICE Arrest at USCIS Adjustment-of-Status Interview"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Toledo Hernandez v. Bondi<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-13<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:26-cv-00036<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Temporary restraining order, irreparable harm, immigration enforcement, USCIS adjustment-of-status interviews, ICE arrests<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied the TRO. Under the standard set out in the Supreme Court’s Winter v. NRDC<\/em> 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 \u2014 but irreparable harm and a public-interest finding still must be shown.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n