{"id":501,"date":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=501"},"modified":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","slug":"pogosian-bowen-cd-cal-immigration-preliminary-injunction-redetention-procedures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=501","title":{"rendered":"Pogosian v. Bowen \u2014 C.D. Cal. Issues Preliminary Injunction Barring Re-Detention of Released Immigration Petitioner Without Procedural Protections"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Ambartsoum Pogosian v. M. Bowen<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-21<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-03380-DOC-DTB<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Immigration habeas, preliminary injunction, re-detention, mootness, Nielsen v. Preap, Winter factors, due process<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

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\u2019s situation (re-detention in violation of applicable procedures). Drawing on the Supreme Court\u2019s 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 \u2014 like the plaintiffs in Nielsen \u2014 Pogosian \u201cface[s] the threat of re-arrest and mandatory detention.\u201d The Esmail court\u2019s observation was particularly persuasive: \u201c[w]ere this so, no court would issue a preliminary injunction following the grant of a TRO ordering a habeas petitioner\u2019s release, which is plainly not the case.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The injunction restrains the government with \u201cthe same restraint as in the TRO\u201d: 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.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n