1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 NARCILO CAICEDO HINESTROZA, et Case No. 25-cv-07559-JD al., 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE PRELIMINARY 7 INJUNCTION v. 8 SERGIO ALBARRAN, et al., 9 Defendants.

10 Petitioners Narcilo Caicedo Hinestroza, Jairo Andres Dangond Lopez, and Jhelvin Jherh 11 Ramos Huaman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against respondents Sergio Albarran1, 12 Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office; 13 Todd Lyons, Acting Director of ICE; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland 14 Security; and Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, all named in their official capacities. See 15 Dkt. No. 1. Petitioners filed an application for a temporary restraining order for release from 16 detention, Dkt. No. 2, which the Court granted, Dkt. No. 8. The parties filed briefs with respect to 17 a preliminary injunction, and the Court held a hearing. See Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 15. The parties’ 18 familiarity with the record is assumed and an injunction is granted. 19 The salient facts are undisputed, and the government has not indicated that any material 20 facts have changed since the TRO was granted. Petitioners have raised a serious legal question, 21 and demonstrated a likelihood of success, with respect to the merits of whether they may be 22 detained in the circumstances presented here, and have also made a sufficient showing on the other 23 factors that the Court considers when granting a preliminary injunction. See Am. Fed’n of Gov’t 24 Emps., AFL-CIO v. Trump, No. 25-CV-03070-JD,

, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 25 June 24, 2025) (citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,

(9th Cir. 26 27 1 2011)); Dkt. No. 8. The government’s contentions to the contrary, Dkt. No. 11, are substantively 2 || identical to those raised in opposition to the TRO, Dkt. No. 5. The Court has already addressed 3 and disallowed these arguments, Dkt. No. 8, and that discussion and reasoning are incorporated 4 || here. The government has not presented a good reason to reach a different conclusion at this time. 5 Consequently, a preliminary injunction is granted on the ensuing terms. If circumstances 6 || change materially, the government may request a modification of the injunction. 7 (1) Respondents, and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and any person acting in 8 concert with them, or at their behest, and who has knowledge of this injunction, are enjoined from 9 || detaining petitioners Narcilo Caicedo Hinestroza, Jairo Andres Dangond Lopez, and Jhelvin Jherh 10 || Ramos Huaman without a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. 11 (2) Respondents, and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and any person acting in 12 concert with them, or at their behest, and who has knowledge of this injunction, are enjoined from 5 13 || transferring petitioners Narcilo Caicedo Hinestroza, Jairo Andres Dangond Lopez, and Jhelvin 14 || Jherh Ramos Huaman out of the District without the Court’s prior approval. 3 15 There is no realistic likelihood of harm to respondents from enjoining their conduct, and so 16 || petitioners need not give security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). See Jorgensen v. 3 17 Cassiday,

(9th Cir. 2003); Barahona-Gomez v. Reno,

, 1237 18 |] comcir. 1999). 19 The parties are directed to jointly propose by November 28, 2025, a briefing schedule on 20 || the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: November 5, 2025 23 24 25 JAMES/#PONATO- United ~tates District Judge 26 27 28