Daijiworld Media Network - Michigan

Michigan, Dec 6: A federal judge in Michigan has denied an emergency request from Indian national Chintankumar Govindbhai Patel, who sought immediate protection from a potential arrest by US immigration authorities during his upcoming check-in.

Patel, a Detroit-area resident pursuing permanent residency through his American spouse, filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order on December 1, 2025. In a ruling issued Thursday, US District Judge F. Kay Behm concluded that Patel failed to meet the strict standards required for such relief without notifying the government.

Patel told the court that he fears being taken into custody during his ICE appointment scheduled for December 10. He noted that he is married to a US citizen, has applied for family-based permanent residence, and has “no criminal history except for a DUI in December 2023.”

However, Judge Behm emphasized that Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to grant restraining orders without notice only when the movant demonstrates clear and immediate risk of irreparable harm and when their attorney certifies efforts made to alert the opposing party—or explains why notice should not be required. The court found that Patel satisfied neither condition.

Citing longstanding judicial principles opposing court action without due notice, the judge wrote that Patel did not contend the government was unreachable nor that notifying officials would jeopardize his case. The court also noted he did not argue that a hearing—potentially conducted via Zoom—would expose him to additional danger.

The motion was denied without prejudice, leaving Patel free to refile after properly serving the government and meeting the full standard for injunctive relief, which includes demonstrating likely success, irreparable harm, consideration of third-party impacts, and alignment with the public interest.

Judge Behm also pointed out apparent deficiencies in Patel’s underlying complaint, noting that the basis for his Fifth Amendment and Immigration and Nationality Act claims was unclear. She warned the case could be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, but reminded Patel of his right to amend his filing under Rule 15.

The matter unfolds amid heightened attention on ICE enforcement activities during scheduled appointments, a practice that has drawn scrutiny in recent immigration cases—including those involving non-citizens married to Americans. India continues to be a major source of both family- and employment-based US immigration applications, even as federal courts maintain a high bar for emergency relief in immigration-related arrests.