Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted Khanh Truong Nguyen’s petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that ICE failed to comply with regulatory requirements governing the revocation of Nguyen’s Order of Supervision and failed to establish changed circumstances creating a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court ordered Nguyen’s immediate release subject to the prior Order of Supervision and denied the remaining requests as moot.
Holdings
- Neither § 1252(g) nor § 1252(b)(9) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Nguyen's challenge to the procedures and legality of his renewed detention.
- ICE unlawfully revoked Nguyen's Order of Supervision and returned him to custody because it failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2)-(3), including the requirement to determine that changed circumstances created a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future and to provide notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity to respond.
- Immediate release subject to the terms of Nguyen's prior Order of Supervision was an appropriate remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) because ICE's failure to comply with its own release-revocation regulations rendered the renewed detention unlawful.
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) or § 1252(b)(9) deprived the district court of jurisdiction to review Nguyen's challenge to his renewed immigration detention and the alleged failure to follow release-revocation procedures.
- Whether ICE complied with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2)-(3) when it revoked Nguyen's Order of Supervision and returned him to custody.
- Whether habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including immediate release subject to the prior Order of Supervision, was an appropriate remedy for ICE's failure to comply with its own regulations.
- Whether Nguyen's requests for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief and expedited handling remained viable.
Disposition
writ_granted
Cases Cited (8)
- Mukantagara v. DHS, 67 F.4th 1113, 1115 (10th Cir. 2023)(followed)
- Tazu v. Attorney General, 975 F.3d 292, 299 (3d Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482-85 (1999)(followed)
- Barrios v. Ripa, 2025 WL 2280485, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2025)(followed)
- Pham v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1157-SLP, 2025 WL 3243870, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 20, 2025)(followed)
- Hamidi v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1205-G, Doc. No. 19, at 9 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2025)(followed)
- Qui v. Carter, No. 25-CIV-3131-JWL, 2025 WL 2770502, at *4-5 (D. Kan. Sept. 26, 2025)(followed)
- Liu v. Carter, No. 25-CV-3036-JWL, 2025 WL 1696526, at *2-3 (D. Kan. June 17, 2025)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.