Case 2:17-cv-00702 Document 6 Filed 01/29/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:55

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALI KHOSHBAKHTI VAYEGHAN,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

v.
JOHN F. KELLY, Department of
Homeland Security, et al.,

16

Respondents.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 17-0702
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER [AMENDED and
CORRECTED]

On January 28, 2017, Petitioner Ali Khoshbakhti Vayeghan filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, a proposed
Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction, and an Ex Parte Application for
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) staying his removal from the United States, and
ordering his release from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security. [Doc. ##
1, 2.] Before the Court could rule on the TRO, he was placed on a flight to Dubai to be
removed to Iran. On January 29, 2017, he filed an Amended Ex Parte Application for

26

Temporary Restraining Order (“Amended TRO Application”), which is currently before

27

the Court. [Doc. # 4.]

28

-1-

 Case 2:17-cv-00702 Document 6 Filed 01/29/17 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:56

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs the issuance of TROs and preliminary

2

injunctions, and courts apply the same standard to both. See Credit Bureau Connection,

3

Inc. v. Pardini, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 2737128, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2010)

4

(citing Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless & Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1199 v.

5

Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2006)). The purpose of such injunctive relief is

6

to preserve the rights and relative positions of the parties, i.e., the status quo, until a final

7

judgment issues. See U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th

8

Cir. 2010) (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68

9

L.Ed.2d 175 (1981)).

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Having reviewed and considered Petitioner’s written submissions, the Court finds
that:
1. Petitioner has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in establishing that
removal violates the Establishment Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act,
and his rights to Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152(a)(1)(A) (“[N]o person shall receive any preference or

18

priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of

19

the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”); cf. Board

20

of Educ. Of Kiryas Joel Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 696, 702–703

21

(1994).

22
23
24

2. There is a strong likelihood that Petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of interim injunctive relief.

25
26
27

3. The balance of equities weighs sharply in favor of Petitioner and granting interim
injunctive relief.

28

-2-

 Case 2:17-cv-00702 Document 6 Filed 01/29/17 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:57

1

4. The Court must consider the public interest in upholding constitutional rights.

2

Preminger v. Pincipi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005). Given the constitutional

3

rights at issue in this case, interim injunctive relief is in the public interest.

4
5

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

6
7

1. The Amended TRO Application is GRANTED. Respondents and their officers,

8

agents, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert or participating with

9

them, are enjoined and restrained from barring Petitioner’s return to the United

10

States.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

2. Respondents shall transport Petitioner back to the United States and admit him
under the terms of his previously approved visa.
3. Respondents shall communicate the terms of this Court’s order immediately to
officers in Dubai, and to authorities in the airport in Dubai holding Petitioner on
Respondents’ orders.

19
20

4. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the assigned judge and/or the parties, Petitioner

21

shall file any supplemental brief in support of his motion for preliminary injunction

22

by January 31, 2017. Respondents shall file their opposition to Petitioner’s Ex

23

Parte Application and motion for preliminary injunction by February 3, 2017.

24

Petitioner shall file his reply by February 7, 2017.

25
26
27
28

-3-

 Case 2:17-cv-00702 Document 6 Filed 01/29/17 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:58

1

5. Respondents shall appear before the assigned judge on February 10, 2017 at 9:30

2

a.m. to show cause why the preliminary injunctive relief sought in the Amended Ex

3

Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re

4

Preliminary Injunction should not be granted.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10
11

DATED: January 29, 2017
DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-