Washington, Dec 6 (IANS) A federal court in Michigan has denied an emergency request from an Indian national seeking to stop US immigration authorities from arresting him during a scheduled check-in next week.
The ruling leaves the Detroit-area resident without immediate protection as he continues pursuing permanent residence through his American spouse.
In an opinion issued Thursday, US District Judge F. Kay Behm rejected the ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order filed by Chintankumar Govindbhai Patel, an Indian citizen living in the Detroit region. The court noted that Patel “filed this action and an ex parte motion for temporary restraining order on December 1, 2025,” but “has not met the standard for granting ex parte relief.”
Patel informed the court that he has an ICE interview/check-in scheduled for December 10 and fears he will be arrested at that appointment. He stated he is married to a US citizen and is seeking family-based permanent residence, adding that he has “no criminal history except for a DUI in December 2023.”
But the judge ruled that Patel’s filing did not meet the strict conditions for issuing orders without notifying the government. Under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice only if specific facts “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result” and the movant’s attorney “certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.”
“These stringent restrictions … reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute,” the ruling stated.
Judge Behm found that Patel “has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1),” noting that he neither claimed the government was “unable to be found” nor argued that giving notice would render the case “fruitless.” The court added that Patel did not assert that appearing for a hearing would put him at heightened risk, and that a hearing could be held remotely “over Zoom.”
The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning Patel may renew it — but only after formally serving the government and meeting the full standard for injunctive relief. That broader test examines whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed, faces irreparable harm, risks imposing substantial hardship on others, and aligns with the public interest.
Judge Behm also cautioned that Patel’s underlying complaint appears incomplete, stating that “it is not clear … what the basis of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment Due Process and Immigration and Nationality Act claims are,” and warning that the case “may be subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.” The court advised Patel of his right to amend the complaint under Rule 15.
In recent months, there have been reports of ICE arrests during appointments. Several recent cases have prompted legal scrutiny, particularly involving non-citizens married to Americans. India remains one of the most significant sources of family- and employment-based immigration applicants to the United States.
Federal courts generally require a high threshold for emergency injunctions in immigration-related arrests, emphasising due process and jurisdictional clarity.
–IANS
lkj/rs
