Quoc Thai Minh Thuy v. Jason Streeval, Kristen Sullivan, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, and Todd Blanche

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia grants Quoc Thai Minh Thuy’s amended habeas petition challenging his detention and revocation of supervised release. The Court concludes that although the 2020 U.S.–Vietnam memorandum constituted a material changed circumstance permitting custody review, Respondents failed to establish a significant likelihood of removal to Vietnam in the reasonably foreseeable future under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). The Court orders Thuy’s release within 24 hours and directs Respondents to file a certificate of compliance within 48 hours after release.

Holdings

1. The error in checking the wrong regulatory provision did not independently require immediate release because the court found that Thuy was accorded the procedural rights required under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
2. Before revoking an order of supervision under § 241.13(i), the government must identify a material development applicable to the circumstances underlying the individual's release; a broad policy change may qualify, but the regulation does not require an individualized showing so specific that ICE already possesses a visa and plane ticket before detention.
3. The government failed to establish a significant likelihood that Thuy could be removed to Vietnam in the reasonably foreseeable future; generalized removal statistics, the 2020 memorandum, and preliminary travel-document activity were insufficient.
4. The court declined to impose the requested prospective restrictions, without deciding whether it had authority to do so, because the requested injunction would merely require the government to follow the law and because a future detention would be subject to preclusion absent a material change in circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether ICE violated its own regulations by revoking Thuy's order of supervision under an authorization provision that did not permit the signing officer to issue the revocation notice.
2. Whether, under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), ICE could revoke Thuy's release without establishing a material change in circumstances and a significant likelihood that he could be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
3. Whether the government established a significant likelihood of Thuy's removal through the 2020 U.S.-Vietnam memorandum of understanding, generalized removal statistics, and an unsubmitted or incomplete travel-document request.
4. Whether the court should issue prospective restrictions on any future detention beyond ordering release and restoration to supervision.

Disposition

writ_granted