Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
N.D.N., a Vietnamese national, had lived under an immigration order of supervision for approximately 24 years after the government could not carry out a 2000 removal order. The petition alleged that he consistently complied with supervision. In October 2025, he attended ICE appointments and was redetained after Vietnam began reviewing a travel-document request. ICE’s notice said removal had become imminent.
N.D.N. filed a habeas petition asserting that the redetention violated federal regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, immigration law, constitutional limits on indefinite detention, and required procedures for any removal to a third country. The district judge previously ordered his immediate release and prohibited renewed detention, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge. That relief later became a preliminary injunction. Respondents filed no additional opposition after referral to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition in part and making the existing release protections permanent. The evidentiary record had not changed since preliminary relief. For the reasons stated in the district judge’s earlier order, the government’s revocation procedures were inadequate, so ICE should remain barred from redetaining N.D.N. without notice and a pre-detention hearing, unless exigent circumstances exist. Because that remedy already secured release, the recommendation did not reach the other theories seeking the same result.
The recommendation separately rejected relief concerning third-country removal on the present record. No evidence showed that such a removal was contemplated, and N.D.N. had received no notice of one. The travel-document request concerned Vietnam, his native country, rather than an unconnected country. The claim was therefore not ripe for relief. The court did not prohibit removal to Vietnam and did not decide what procedures would be required if a third-country plan later emerged.
The proposed disposition was to grant the section 2241 petition only in part, make the preliminary injunction permanent, enter judgment for N.D.N., and close the case. It remained a recommendation, not a final district-court judgment. The parties had seven days after service to object, followed by seven days for any response.
Key Takeaways
- The recommended injunction concerns redetention procedure: notice and a hearing are required before renewed custody absent exigent circumstances.
- The recommendation relies on an unchanged record and the reasoning in the district judge’s earlier preliminary-injunction order.
- The magistrate judge did not decide alternative release theories because the procedural claim supplied the requested custody relief.
- No third-country-removal relief was recommended because the record pointed only to possible removal to Vietnam.
Why It Matters
The case illustrates how habeas relief can protect process even when a final removal order remains in place. Long-term compliance with supervision and abrupt redetention without the required safeguards can support prospective restrictions on ICE’s custody decisions.
Practitioners must distinguish custody relief from removal relief. The proposed injunction would not cancel the removal order or prevent removal to Vietnam. It also was not yet final: objections and district-judge review remained available. Evidence of an actual third-country plan could present a different issue in a later motion.
The seven-day objection period is unusually important here because the document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation. Counsel should identify precisely which portions of the earlier preliminary-injunction reasoning remain disputed and whether the record has changed. Until the district judge acts, the existing preliminary injunction supplies the operative protection; the recommended permanent injunction and entry of judgment have not yet occurred.