govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_26-cv-04816-0

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
IKECHUKWU CHARLES SUNNY-ODIO, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
 
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
Re: Dkt. No. 9 
 
 
Ikechukwu Charles Sunny-Odio is a Nigerian national and master’s student at the 
University of California, Berkeley. He secured a job offer in the United States and submitted a 
Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (“USCIS”). But USCIS Policy Memoranda 602-0192 and 602-0194 indefinitely paused 
adjudicating immigration benefit applications from nationals of 39 countries designated as high 
risk, including Nigeria. Relatedly, USCIS Policy Alert 2025-26 treats factors used to designate 
high-risk countries as significant negative factors in the adjudication process. So USCIS has not 
adjudicated Sunny-Odio’s I-765. He now moves for a preliminary injunction barring Defendants 
from applying the Policy Memoranda and Policy Alert when adjudicating his I-765. For the 
reasons stated below, Sunny-Odio’s motion is GRANTED. This order assumes the reader is 
familiar with the facts of the case, the applicable legal standards, and the parties’ arguments. 
Likelihood of Success on the Merits. Sunny-Odio has shown a likelihood of success on 
his arbitrary and capricious claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 
The Policy Memoranda and Policy Alert are final agency actions, and there is no evidence that 
Defendants considered the reliance interests of immigration benefit applicants or alternatives to 
an indefinite pause. See Behdin v. Edlow, No. 26-CV-00566-SVK, 2026 WL 1031079, at *18–
22 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2026); Meschi v. Edlow, No. 26-CV-01993-AGT, 2026 WL 1157151, at 
*1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2026); Dorcas Int’l Inst. of R.I. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. 

2 
26-CV-132-JJM, 2026 WL 1622708, at *22–26, *47–54 (D.R.I. June 5, 2026). The jurisdiction-
stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not apply. See Behdin, 2026 WL 
1031079, at *6–7, *9–11; Dorcas, 2026 WL 1622708, at *13–16. Nor are the challenged actions 
“committed to agency discretion by law” under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). See Behdin, 2026 WL 
1031079, at *13; Dorcas, 2026 WL 1622708, at *19–20. 
Since Sunny-Odio has shown a likelihood of success on one of his claims, his other 
claims need not be addressed. 
Irreparable Harm. Sunny-Odio has shown irreparable harm. The Policy Memoranda 
and Policy Alert have already caused him to delay starting his new job. (Dkt. No. 14 at 42.)1 If 
Sunny-Odio loses this job and cannot start another one because of his inability to receive 
employment authorization, he risks a significant setback at the start of his career in a competitive 
job market. (Id. at 42–43.) Additionally, the uncertainty caused by USCIS’s policies has had an 
ongoing profound effect on Sunny-Odio’s life, including preventing him from traveling for his 
grandmother’s funeral, injecting doubt about his future in this country into his long-term 
relationship, causing panic attacks, and affecting his ability to effectively pursue his research and 
education. (Id. at 43–44.) Those harms are all irreparable and directly caused by the uncertainty 
about his visa and employment authorization status under the Policy Memoranda and Policy 
Alert. See Behdin, 2026 WL 1031079, at *24–25. 
Even though the Policy Memoranda and Policy Alert were vacated in Dorcas, Sunny-
Odio still faces imminent harm, because of the uncertainty that remains as to whether that ruling 
will be stayed or overturned on appeal. “[C]ourts routinely grant follow-on injunctions against 
the Government, even in instances when an earlier nationwide injunction has already provided 
plaintiffs in the later action with their desired relief.” Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t 
of Health & Hum. Servs., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1, 60 (D.D.C. 2020) (citing, among other cases, 
California v. Health & Hum. Servs., 390 F. Supp. 3d 1061, 1065–66 (N.D. Cal. 2019)). That is 
 
1 All citations to page numbers in filings on the docket refer to ECF pagination. 

3 
particularly true when the other order is “one in a different circuit that could be overturned or 
limited at any time.” California, 390 F. Supp. 3d at 1066. Indeed, the government has already 
filed a notice of appeal in Dorcas (Dkt. No. 22-2), and seemingly intends to request a stay from 
the First Circuit. (See Dkt. No. 22-1 at 4.) 
Balance of Harms and Public Interest. “[T]here is generally no public interest in the 
perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Am. Ass’n of Univ. Professors v. Trump, 815 F. Supp. 
3d 907, 976 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (quoting League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 
(D.C. Cir. 2016)). An injunction prohibiting applying the Policy Memoranda and Policy Alert to 
Sunny-Odio’s I-765 would put him back in the normal queue. It would not allow him to cut the 
line. If anything, “applicants from countries not subject to the Policy Memoranda are the ones 
who have been allowed to ‘leapfrog’ in front of [Sunny-Odio].” See Behdin, 2026 WL 1031079, 
at *15, *26. 
Conclusion. Sunny-Odio’s motion is GRANTED. As Defendants have not requested a 
bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), none will be required. See Conn. Gen. Life 
Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 882–83 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants and 
all of their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any person in active 
concert or participation with them are ENJOINED from applying USCIS Policy Memoranda 
602-0192 and 602-0194, or USCIS Policy Alert 2025-26, to any Form I-765 application filed by 
Sunny-Odio. Defendants’ counsel is ORDERED to submit a status report by June 22, 2026, 
confirming that this order has been communicated to Defendants and that Sunny-Odio’s 
application is currently being adjudicated in a manner consistent with USCIS’s processes absent 
the enjoined policies. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 18, 2026 
 
RITA F. LIN 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight