Filed Date: May 11, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges ICE’s authority to re-detain noncitizens who have been granted withholding of removal.
Edwin Yobani Enamorado, a 42-year-old Honduran national, fled Honduras with his family in December 2018 due to threats from MS-13 gang members. An asylum officer found he had a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, and in July 2019, an Immigration Judge ordered his release, finding he posed neither a danger nor a flight risk. In April 2022, he was granted withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). His wife and children were granted asylum in August 2022 and became lawful permanent residents in September 2024. For nearly six years, Mr. Enamorado has lived in Martinez, California, supporting his family through his landscaping business, with no criminal history and consistent compliance with the law.
On April 10, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ordered Mr. Enamorado to appear at the San Francisco ICE office for an “interview” on May 14, 2025. Fearing re-detention and removal to a third country, which he alleged was consistent with a government “internal directive” that had resulted in the detention of at least nine similarly situated individuals (D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.), he sought court protection, despite his full compliance with reporting requirements and his ongoing withholding of removal order.
On May 11, 2025, he filed this habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Under the Fifth Amendment, he sued the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Acting San Francisco ICE Field Office Director, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General. The case was assigned to District Judge Noel Wise.
The petitioner argued that his potential re-detention by ICE would violate his Fifth Amendment right to freedom from custody without due process, protections he emphasized apply to all persons in the United States, including noncitizens. He asserted a strong likelihood of success, citing his 2022 grant of withholding of removal, his lawful presence under bond since 2019, consistent compliance with the law, and his lack of flight risk or danger to the public. He argued that no legitimate basis existed for his detention or removal, particularly in connection with his scheduled interview, and claimed that re-detention would cause irreparable harm through the violation of his constitutional rights.
On May 12, 2025, the petitioner filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent his detention during his upcoming “interview” and possible removal to a third country. That same day, Judge Wise granted the TRO, finding the petitioner raised serious questions under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and was likely to succeed on the merits. 2025 WL 1382859. The order temporarily barred the government from re-arresting or re-detaining the petitioner based on his immigration status, including during and after his May 21, 2025, hearing. It required the petitioner to comply with DHS/ICE directives, including the May 14 interview, and waived the security bond.
On May 28, 2025, the petitioner’s bond was canceled, and he was placed under an order of supervision, with a scheduled check-in at ICE on May 27, 2026.
On July 3, 2025, the petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend his habeas petition and complaint, along with a renewed motion for a TRO, to address new events and legal developments following the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2025 decision in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.).
The court heard the motions on July 16. Defendants agreed the petitioner posed no danger to the community and was not a flight risk. They indicated that while they were unaware of any current intent to detain or deport him, the government sought to submit an updated declaration from a representative outlining the agency’s intentions, which would bind the government. The court granted leave to file the declaration. It also granted the motion to amend and accepted the amended petition and complaint as filed. The parties stipulated to issuance of a new TRO preserving the terms of the May 12 order.
On July 17, Judge Wise granted the renewed TRO, finding that serious questions on the merits remained and that the balance of hardships continued to tip sharply in the petitioner’s favor. Defendants confirmed they were unaware of any intent to detain or remove him and again acknowledged he posed no flight risk or danger. The court temporarily enjoined them from re-arresting or re-detaining him based on his immigration status, including during or after the upcoming hearing.
The TRO will remain in effect until 5 PM August 19, 2025, or further order of the Court.
The case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Scott Shuchart (5/14/2025)
Victoria Tan (7/30/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70242841/parties/enamorado-v-kaiser/
Jeu, Christopher Frederick (California)
Lakin, Judah Ben (California)
Lee, Jane S (California)
Moreno, Heliodoro Moreno (California)
Wille, Amalia Margarete (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70242841/enamorado-v-kaiser/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 4:58 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 11, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Honduran national granted withholding of removal
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
Attorney General (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Release from detention/imprisonment
Order Duration: 2025 - None
Issues
Immigration/Border: