Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01844/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01844-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA CAROLINA PARROSALES, and ETHAN JAFETH 

PAR, minor child,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

ORDER CONSOLIDATING 

CASES; AND 

ORDER DENYING RENEWED 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER

Consolidation

When this case was originally filed, the initiating document consisted of a 

motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Through a docketing error, the 

accompanying petition for writ of habeas corpus was erroneously filed under case 

number 19cv1848. The two cases were then deemed related and assigned to the 

undersigned judge. The Court now ORDERS the two cases consolidated. All future 

filings should be in the docket for this case. The Clerk is directed to file the initiating 

petition in case 19cv1848 (docket no. 1 in that case) in the docket of this case. 

Renewed TRO Motion

The Court denied an emergency TRO, pointing out that Petitioners had 

waited until literally the day of their hearing before the immigration judge (IJ) to file 

Case 3:19-cv-01844-LAB-JLB Document 14 Filed 10/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

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

their motion. This left the government with no time to respond. While there might 

be good reasons for waiting so long and filing the petition and TRO motion only at 

the last moment, Petitioners had not explained what those were. After denying the 

motion without prejudice, the Court required additional briefing, as well as a status 

update that was intended to make clear the need and appropriateness of 

immediate relief.

The status update represented that the government would not return 

Petitioners to Mexico until further notice. Then on October 16, the government filed 

a notice stating that it intended to return Petitioners to Mexico to await the outcome 

of their asylum application. Petitioners have now filed their second emergency 

TRO motion (the “Motion”).

Background

Petitioners are a mother and minor child who are Guatemalan nationals who 

on June 28, 2019 entered the United States without inspection in Arizona, where 

they were apprehended and immediately requested asylum. They were put into 

the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program and sent back into Mexico. They 

were paroled back into the United States and eventually on August 12, 2019 

appeared before Immigration Judge Lee O’Connor, who continued their case until 

September 26 in order to allow their newly-retained counsel to become familiar 

with the case. (Pet., ¶ 15.) 

Petitioners assert that Judge O’Connor’s practice is to illegally and 

improperly terminate proceedings, sending asylum-seekers back to Mexico where 

they must begin the process anew. According to Petitioners, Judge O’Connor has 

said no other relief is available to them, and he cannot fix the problem. Therefore, 

they conclude, this Court is the only entity with the power to fix the problem.

Petitioners’ response does not explain their lengthy delay in filing their first 

TRO motion. All it says is that “the delayed filing of the TRO [motion] was due to 

the fact that Petitioners[‘’] counsel did not receive this case until Monday, 

Case 3:19-cv-01844-LAB-JLB Document 14 Filed 10/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

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

September 23, 2019.” (Pet’r Response (Docket no. 7.) at 4:1–2.) Bearing in mind 

that Judge O’Connor on August 12 gave Petitioners over six weeks to allow their 

then newly-retained counsel time to become familiar with the case, this explanation 

raises more questions than it answers. But what it does not do is to show any 

adequate reason for the lengthy delay and last-minute filing. 

The Response addresses the factors set forth in Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. 

council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), but falls short. In particular, they have not 

shown any likelihood of success on the merits, and have not shown a likelihood of 

irreparable harm.

Petitioners make the unsupported contention that Mexico’s high crime rate 

means they are likely to be attacked, kidnapped, or killed. While Mexico’s border 

regions are known for high crime, Petitioners have not shown they are any more 

likely to be harmed than any of the millions of people who voluntarily live in or visit 

Mexico’s border regions. Nor have they shown that Mexican authorities are likely 

to return them to Guatemala while they are in the process of seeking asylum. They 

also assert, with no support or explanation, that while they are in Mexico they are 

prevented from preparing and working on their cases. 

Respondents on October 7 filed their opposition to the original TRO motion. 

(Docket no. 8.) Among other things, the response included a substantial section 

addressing lack of jurisdiction, including jurisdictional bars under 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (g), and an argument that as parolees who are in the U.S.

at their own request, Petitioners are not “in custody” for habeas purposes. The

“likelihood of success” analysis also argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear

claims arising under the consent decree in Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306

(1993), which Petitioners rely on. See Hernandez Culajay v. McAleenan, ___ F.

Supp. 3d ___, 2019 WL 3889737, at *6 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 19, 2019) (holding that the

only district court with jurisdiction to enforce the Flores consent decree is the U.S.

District Court for the Central District of California).

Case 3:19-cv-01844-LAB-JLB Document 14 Filed 10/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

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

Although the Court’s order did not provide for a reply brief, Petitioners could 

have sought leave to file one to address jurisdiction, or they could have amended 

their petition. In its current state, the Petition merely agues that the Court has 

jurisdiction because a federal question is present. It does not address the 

jurisdictional bars, and its assertion that Petitioners are in custody is wholly 

conclusory. Nor does it suggest any reason why the Court has authority to enforce 

the Flores consent decree. Bearing in mind that jurisdiction is presumed to be 

lacking, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), 

Petitioners should have addressed jurisdictional questions as soon as they 

became apparent. 

More generally, both the Petition and Motion rely heavily on unsupported or 

only thinly-explained conclusions. Although some of the arguments may be valid, 

separating the genuine from the hypothetical can be difficult. Petitioners’ counsel 

are in the best position to explain the bases for their claims, and future filings 

should do so. 

Finally, while Petitioners’ counsel are understandably concerned for their 

clients’ welfare, they must avoid making unauthorized ex parte contact with 

chambers. On October 17, for example, they emailed a proposed order to 

chambers without copying opposing counsel as required,1 and included a request 

for expedited consideration. They also called chambers without opposing counsel 

on the line, to inform the Court that the motion was urgent. The Court has 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

1 See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, 

§ 2(h).

Case 3:19-cv-01844-LAB-JLB Document 14 Filed 10/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19cv1844-LAB (JLB)

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

admonished counsel already that it is unwilling in this case to entertain one side’s 

request without giving the other side notice and an opportunity to be heard. 

The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01844-LAB-JLB Document 14 Filed 10/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5