Kha Nguyen Tran v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Kha Nguyen Tran’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that immigration officials violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 by revoking Tran’s release without demonstrating changed circumstances before revocation, providing written notice of the reasons, or conducting a prompt informal interview. The court ordered Tran’s immediate release, subject to the conditions of his prior order of supervision, while dismissing as moot his claims concerning prolonged detention under Zadvydas and removal to a third country.

Holdings

1. Section 1252(g) did not bar jurisdiction because Tran challenged the legality of his detention and alleged violations of mandatory statutory, regulatory, and constitutional duties, rather than the discretionary decision to execute his removal order.
2. Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), ICE may revoke an alien's release for removal only after determining, on account of changed circumstances and before revocation, that there is a significant likelihood the alien may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
3. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) requires written notice containing all reasons for revocation of an alien's release; an I-213 form stating only that the person was arrested based on a final removal order does not satisfy that requirement.
4. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) requires a prompt initial informal interview after detention for revocation, at which the alien may respond to the reasons for revocation; Tran's detention without that opportunity violated the regulation and due process.
5. Tran's claims concerning prolonged detention under Zadvydas and threatened removal to a third country were moot after the government obtained travel documents for removal to Vietnam and Tran stipulated to mootness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Tran's challenge to the lawfulness of his detention.
2. Whether ICE unlawfully revoked Tran's release and detained him by failing to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), including the required determination based on changed circumstances before revocation.
3. Whether ICE violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) and due process by failing to provide written notice stating the reasons for revocation and by failing to conduct a prompt informal interview.
4. Whether Tran's claims under Zadvydas v. Davis and concerning removal to a third country became moot after the government obtained travel documents for removal to Vietnam.

Disposition

writ_granted