Hung Huu Anh Hoang v. Kristi Noem et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted in part Hung Huu Anh Hoang’s renewed application for a temporary restraining order. The court found that ICE likely violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) by failing to provide a prompt informal interview after revoking Hoang’s release, ordered his immediate release subject to the conditions of his prior order of supervision, and enjoined inconsistent re-detention. The order also directed respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue and set related briefing deadlines and a hearing.

Holdings

1. ICE likely violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) by failing to conduct an initial informal interview promptly after returning Hoang to custody. A delay of more than one month was not prompt.
2. Hoang was entitled to temporary restraining-order relief because he showed serious questions going to the merits, a sharply favorable balance of hardships, irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored relief.
3. A belated interview would not cure the violation because the regulation requires the initial informal interview promptly after return to custody and in connection with the revocation process. The proper remedy was release from custody subject to the prior order of supervision.
4. No security bond was required because Respondents did not argue that a bond was necessary or identify a likely harm from the injunction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether ICE unlawfully revoked Hoang's release by failing to provide the prompt informal interview required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3).
2. Whether Hoang satisfied the requirements for temporary restraining-order relief.
3. Whether release from custody, rather than a belated interview, was the appropriate remedy for the procedural violation.
4. Whether a security bond was required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Disposition

other