Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Ut Van Nguyen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that immigration authorities violated applicable regulations and due process requirements by revoking Nguyen’s supervised release without demonstrating changed circumstances, providing adequate notice, or conducting a prompt informal interview. The court ordered Nguyen’s immediate release subject to the conditions of his prior supervision and denied his motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.
Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Decision date
December 12, 2025
Docket number
25cv3032-LL-MMP
Disposition
writ_granted
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Nguyen's challenge to detention resulting from alleged violations of mandatory statutes, regulations, and constitutional requirements.
- Whether ICE unlawfully revoked Nguyen's supervised release by failing to determine before revocation that changed circumstances created a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Whether ICE violated regulatory and constitutional due-process requirements by failing to provide written reasons for revocation and a prompt informal interview with an opportunity to respond.
- Whether Nguyen was entitled to immediate release from custody and reinstatement of his prior supervised-release conditions.
Holdings
- The Court had jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of Nguyen's detention because he challenged detention based on alleged violations of mandatory statutory, regulatory, and constitutional duties, rather than the Government's discretionary decision to execute his removal order.
- Before revoking an alien's release under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), ICE must determine, on account of changed circumstances and before revocation, that there is a significant likelihood the alien may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- ICE must notify an alien of the reasons for revoking supervised release, and a bare statement that the alien is being re-detained does not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3)'s notice requirement.
- After revoking release and returning an alien to custody, ICE must promptly conduct an initial informal interview giving the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation; failure to do so violates the regulation and due process.
- Because Respondents failed to comply with the governing regulations when revoking Nguyen's supervised release, the Court granted habeas relief and ordered his immediate release on the conditions that governed before his re-detention.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…