Washington, Dec 6 (NationPress) - A federal court in Michigan has rejected an urgent appeal from an Indian national aimed at blocking US immigration authorities from apprehending him during a scheduled check-in next week.

This ruling leaves the resident of the Detroit area without immediate legal protection as he seeks to secure permanent residency through his American spouse.

In a decision released on Thursday, US District Judge F. Kay Behm dismissed the ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order submitted by Chintankumar Govindbhai Patel, an Indian citizen residing in the Detroit region. The court remarked that Patel "initiated this action and an ex parte motion for temporary restraining order on December 1, 2025," but "did not fulfill the criteria necessary for granting ex parte relief."

Patel informed the court that he has a scheduled ICE interview/check-in on December 10 and is concerned about the possibility of being arrested during that meeting. He mentioned his marriage to a US citizen and his pursuit of family-based permanent residency, emphasizing that he has "no criminal history apart from a DUI in December 2023."

However, the judge determined that Patel's request failed to meet the stringent conditions for issuing orders without notifying the government. According to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court can issue a temporary restraining order without notice only if particular facts "clearly demonstrate that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will occur," and the movant's attorney must "certify in writing any efforts made to give notice and the rationale for why it should not be required."

Judge Behm stated that Patel "has not fulfilled the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1)," noting that he did not assert the government was "not reachable" nor did he claim that providing notice would make the case "fruitless." The court also pointed out that Patel did not indicate that attending a hearing would increase his risk, and that a hearing could be conducted remotely via "Zoom."

The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing Patel the opportunity to refile — but only after properly serving the government and meeting the comprehensive criteria for injunctive relief. This broader assessment evaluates whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed, faces irreparable harm, poses significant hardship on others, and aligns with public interest.

Judge Behm also warned that Patel's underlying complaint seems incomplete, indicating that "it is unclear … what the basis of Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment Due Process and Immigration and Nationality Act claims are," and cautioned that the case "may be subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim." The court informed Patel of his right to amend the complaint in accordance with Rule 15.

In recent months, there have been reports of ICE arrests occurring during appointments. Several recent cases have drawn legal scrutiny, particularly those involving non-citizens married to Americans. India continues to be a significant source of family- and employment-based immigration applicants to the United States.

Federal courts typically demand a high threshold for emergency injunctions in immigration-related arrests, emphasizing due process and jurisdictional clarity.