Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00010/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAGEEB KASSEM, and NORA )

KASSEM, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, in his capacity )

as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV F 08-10 AWI SMS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’S

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. No. 22)

This is an immigration case brought by Nageeb Kassem and his wife Nora Kassem. Nora

is a United States citizen by birth. Nageeb seeks lawful permanent resident status. Nageeb’s

application is currently pending before Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Polly Webber. For the reasons

that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied.

BACKGROUND

From the declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel and the attached exhibit, see Court’s Docket

Doc. No. 23, on January 31, 2008, IJ Webber issued an order. The order states that the record of

proceedings in Nageeb’s case was otherwise complete on May 8, 2007, except for a required

background check by DHS. The order states that fingerprints and financial and medical

information had become out of date and that updated information was necessary. IJ Webber has

Case 1:08-cv-00010-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

directed that Nageeb submit current fingerprints and financial and medical information on or by

April 1, 2008, in preparation for an April 22, 2008, hearing. IJ Webber’s order also chastises

DHS for not having timely completed the required background check on Nageeb, states that DHS

has failed to give any time estimates about a completion date in violation of regulations, and

indicates that DHS has violated Nageeb’s right to due process. IJ Webber’s order also states that

hearings have been moved due to DHS’s failure to comply with regulations/provide the

background check. IJ Webber states that, if DHS does not present the background check or

explain the delay and estimate a completion date, then she will end the proceeding with

prejudice. The order states that the government must submit its readiness statement on or before

April 15, 2008, including an estimation if the background check is not complete.

In response to IJ Webber’s order and the upcoming April 22, 2008, hearing date,

Plaintiffs have filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs request that

the Court issue a restraining order that relieves Nageeb of his obligations under the January 2008

order and that prevents IJ Webber from dismissing Nageeb’s case. Nageeb asserts that he will be

irrevocably harmed if he is forced to provide current financial and medical information and will

be irrevocably harmed if IJ Webber dismisses his case, in part because he will be forced to

appear before a new agency that is prejudiced against him. 

Nageeb’s counsel explains that he has objected to IJ Webber’s order and has been waiting

word from the Defendants on ameliorating the situation. Nageeb’s counsel states that he waited

as long as he could before filing this motion, but, as of the date of filing, there have been no new

developments. Nageeb’s counsel states that he is unavailable due to out of state travel from

March 14 through March 30, 2008. He requests that the Court act prior to April 1, 2008. 

Nageeb’s counsel also requests leave to supplement his motion with adequate points and

authorities after April 1, 2008, since the current motion does not cite any legal authority and is

made on an emergency basis. Nageeb’s counsel requests that a hearing date be set for after April

8, 2008, for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Case 1:08-cv-00010-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Legal Standard

Under Rule 65(b), a court may issue an ex parte temporary restraining order only if: (1) it

clearly appears . . . that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the

applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to

give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required. Fed. R.

Civ. Pro. 65(b); Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). Rule

65(b)’s requirements are “stringent,” and temporary restraining orders that are granted ex parte

are to be “restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and

preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” 

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974); McCord,

452 F.3d at 1131. The substantive standard for granting a temporary restraining order is the same

as the standard for entering a preliminary injunction. Bronco Wine Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury,

997 F.Supp. 1309, 1313 (E.D. Cal. 1996); Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft

Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995); see also Welker v. Cicerone, 174 F.Supp.2d

1055, 1062 (C.D. Cal. 2001). The Ninth Circuit has explained the criteria for issuing a

preliminary injunction (and therefore also a temporary restraining order) as follows:

Under the ‘traditional’ test, a party must demonstrate: (1) a strong likelihood of

success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if the

preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff,

and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). Alternatively, a

court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates either a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable

injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply

in his favor.

Global Horizons, Inc. v. United States DOL, 510 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007); Earth Island

Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1158 (9th Cir. 2006). “[U]nder either criteria,

where a plaintiff fails to even raise serious questions about its likelihood of success, an

injunction may not issue.” Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey, 505 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2007);

see also Global Horizons, 510 F.3d at 1058.

Case 1:08-cv-00010-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 03/19/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Also, Plaintiff does not discuss any administrative appeals that may be available. 

1

4

Discussion

Plaintiffs have not sufficiently met their burden of justifying an ex parte restraining order.

First, it is not clear, without briefing from the parties, whether the Court could prohibit IJ

Webber from dismissing Nageeb’s case. Cf. Singh v. Riding, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3585, *11

(E.D. Cal. 2008) (“There is no question that a district court does not have jurisdiction to review

the discretionary denial of adjustment of status under [8 U.S.C. § 1255].”). Second, the dismissal

of Nageeb’s case, if that even occurs, would not be until April 22, 2008 – more than one month

away. Such a time frame is not consistent with emergency ex parte temporary restraining orders. 

Third, the real harm that Plaintiffs seem to wish to avoid by this motion is not IJ Webber’s

dismissal of Nageeb’s case, rather, it is Nageeb having to provide current fingerprints and

financial and medical information. Plaintiffs want a temporary restraining order in place no later

than March 31, 2008. That is because Nageeb is obligated to provide the updated information by

April 1, 2008. Ideally, a decision would have been made in Nageeb’s case prior to May 2007,

when the requested information was not stale. However, when an agency with limited resources

is involved, immediate speed is not always possible. The IJ’s order states that the fingerprints

and medical and financial information have gone stale. If the information was provided in May

2007, then that information is now 10 months old. A great deal can happen in 10 months, and

while perhaps regrettable that new information is now necessary, it does not seem unreasonable

to require Nageeb to provide current information. The public interest with respect to

immigration matters would seem to favor decisions that are based on current information. 

Further, and importantly, there is no explanation of how providing this updated information

constitutes harm, let alone irreparable harm. At best, the request for current information seems to

be an inconvenience. Finally, Plaintiffs have cited no authority that shows that this aspect of IJ

Webber’s order is improper, unreasonable, or even reviewable by this Court. 

1

Case 1:08-cv-00010-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 03/19/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Plaintiffs have not met the stringent burden for an ex parte temporary restraining order. 

Additionally, given the lack of authority in the application, no order to show cause regarding a

preliminary injunction will issue. If Plaintiffs wish to pursue a restraining order or injunction for

a possible event that may or may not occur on April 22, 2008, they will have to file a motion that

is properly supported by citation to legal authority, and should do so well before April 22, 2008. 

If and when such a motion is filed, then the Court will issue a briefing schedule. Since the

Defendants were served with the current motion, and Plaintiffs’ counsel will be back in town on

March 31, 2008, the Court does not foresee the need for another ex parte motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for temporary

restraining order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00010-AWI -SMS Document 25 Filed 03/19/08 Page 5 of 5