Daniela M. Toledo Hernandez v. Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIELA M. TOLEDO HERNANDEZ, Case No.: 26cv0036-LL-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, et al., 15 [ECF No. 3] Defendants.

19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniela M. Toledo Hernandez’s Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order precluding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from detaining Plaintiff at her adjustment-of-status interview on January 14, 2026 at the USCIS San Diego Field Office “and then removing Plaintiff, and, if that would happen, for her immediate release.” ECF No. 3 at 3. Respondents filed an Opposition. ECF No. 6. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

25 The purpose of a temporary restraining order (TRO) is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until a preliminary injunction may be held. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). The legal standard for a TRO and a preliminary injunction is “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). The party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. City & Cty. of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship & Immigr.

6 Servs., 944 F.3d 773, 789 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). In the Ninth Circuit, the court may apply a sliding scale test in which “serious questions going to the merits” and a balance of hardships that tips sharply toward the moving party can support the issuance of a preliminary injunction, as long as there is also a showing of a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

12 The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Plaintiff’s counsel includes declarations from herself regarding three similarly situated applicants who were arrested at their adjustment- of-status interviews in December 2025 at the USCIS field office in San Diego [ECF No. 3 at 26–27] and another attorney regarding an ICE arrest she witnessed at an adjustment-of- status interview on November 12, 2025 [ECF No. 3 at 23] at the USCIS field office in San Diego. Plaintiff also includes news reports primarily from December 2025 describing ICE arrests of applicants at their adjustment-of-status interviews at the USCIS field office in San Diego. ECF No. 3 at 31–47. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that such an arrest is likely to happen to her. Although there have been similarly situated people who have been arrested, there is no indication of whether the majority of applicants are arrested or not. Without more concrete or individualized facts about the likelihood of Plaintiff’s arrest and detention, the Court cannot enjoin Defendants. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 / / / / / / / / / / / / ||C‘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.”).

4 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 ||Dated: January 13, 2026 NO 7 CF | g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge