# Elias

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 11, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11347687

## Case

- **Full name:** Helen Lurene Elias v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 11, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11347687

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

HELEN LURENE ELIAS #A206-552-763 CASE NO. 6:26-CV-00020 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

U S IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO
ENFORCEMENT

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion for a One Year Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Preliminary Injunction” (Doc.21).
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Barbados who was admitted to the United States
on March 15, 1991, as a nonimmigrant visitor authorized to remain until June 14, 1991,
but chose to remain beyond that period without authorization.1 On October 2, 2015, the
Department of Homeland Security served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear charging her
as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for overstaying her admission.2 An
Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed on May 15, 2025. The Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal on October 6, 2025, rendering the removal
order administratively final. Petitioner has remained detained at the South Louisiana ICE
Processing Center since approximately June 6, 2025.

1 Defendant’s exhibit A, att. to Doc. 16.
2 Id.
In her Motion, Petitioner informs the Court that she was convicted of Grand
Larceny, forgery and fraud, and has lived in New York for 36 years.3

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Ms. Elias argues that She is “Ideally Qualified for Bond.”4 She argues that the
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction should be granted due to the
Court’s misinterpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a) versus § 1225(b).
A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must show:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of immediate

and irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law; (3) that greater injury
will result from denying the temporary restraining order than if it is granted; and (4) that a
temporary restraining order will not disserve the public interest. Daniels Health Scis., LLC
v. Vascular Health Scis., LLC, 710 F.3d 579, 582 (5th Cir. 2013).
The very basis of a habeas action is to challenge the statutory or constitutional basis

for detention. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 117 (2020)
(“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of
that custody, and … the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.”) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). Seeking injunctive
relief that mirrors the relief requested in the habeas petition is nothing more than a motion

to decide my habeas petition now. See Garcia-Aleman v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-00886,
ECF No. 20 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025).

3 Doc. 21, p. 5.
4 Id.
Here, the bare allegations Petitioner has raised are insufficient to show a likelihood
of success on the merits. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for a One Year Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Preliminary Injunction” (Doc.21) is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers on this 11th day of May, 2026.
. < JAMES D. CAIN, JR. t °
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11347687. Public record. Not legal advice.