Ore-Falcon: E.D. California Denial of Emergency Relief Under Section 1225

Ore-Falcon v. Wofford, No. 1:26-cv-00181-WBS-EFB, ECF 19 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2026), denied a renewed request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The petitioner sought a bond hearing or release, arguing that Section 1226—not Section 1225—governed and that detention had become unconstitutionally prolonged.

The emergency motion

The petitioner entered without inspection in 2015, was arrested in December 2025, and had a pending U-visa application. Emergency relief required a showing of likely success, irreparable harm, favorable equities, and public interest.

Custody under Section 1225

The court treated the petitioner as an applicant for admission and concluded that Section 1225’s mandatory-detention framework applied. On that premise, it found no likely statutory right to the requested bond hearing. Other courts have disagreed about which detention statute governs people arrested in the interior after an earlier entry, so the controlling circuit and current appellate law must be checked before extending this district-court analysis.

Why length alone did not establish a violation

The court evaluated the duration and course of proceedings rather than adopting a six-month automatic rule. It found no demonstrated agency bad faith or undue delay and no evidence that removal was legally or practically impossible.

The later-filed authority was Immigration Ctr. for Women & Children v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2026) (ICWC). The Ore-Falcon court described the May 20 preliminary order as staying ICE guidance requiring mandatory detention under section 1225 as applied to people with pending U-visa petitions. It addressed whether that order established entitlement to emergency relief in this individual case. The order was preliminary relief from another district, not controlling appellate precedent and not a substitute for proving class membership. Those limits matter here because the petitioner developed the argument in reply rather than in the opening emergency motion.

The late ICWC argument

The petitioner first developed ICWC in reply even though the class order predated the renewed motion. The court noted the late presentation and separately declined to grant emergency relief based on a nonfinal order from another district. It did not adjudicate whether the petitioner satisfied a particular ICWC class definition.

What a stronger record would require

A motion relying on ICWC should put the argument in the opening papers, identify the exact class definition, attach the operative USCIS notices, and connect the requested remedy to the challenged policy or procedure. The ruling also illustrates that a court may reject a claim that another district’s preliminary order conclusively decides the issue in the new case (called preclusive effect).