Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Naeim Touma, a Syrian national and practicing Christian, entered the United States in May 2023 and received an expedited removal order after a negative credible-fear determination affirmed by an immigration judge. He was not removed and was released on an order of supervision in July 2023. The court recounted allegations that he complied with supervision, attended check-ins, obtained employment authorization and Temporary Protected Status, and later sought asylum. USCIS dismissed that asylum application because of the existing expedited removal order. Touma did not dispute that he remained subject to an administratively final removal order.
After Syria's TPS designation was terminated, Touma moved in July 2026 to reopen his credible-fear proceedings based on changed country conditions. An immigration judge denied that motion on jurisdictional grounds, and Touma's counsel later said he had not appealed. ICE revoked his supervision and detained him again at a September 1, 2026 check-in. Touma alleged that he received no advance notice, no written explanation of the reasons, and no opportunity to respond. He sought release or a custody hearing, a new credible-fear process, a stay of removal, declaratory and injunctive relief, and fees. The government answered, and the court held a hearing and received supplemental briefs.
The Court’s Holding
The court first determined that Touma's ninety-day removal period began in 2023 and had expired, and that his release on supervision did not stop that clock. It therefore addressed his detention under the post-removal-period framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), informed by the presumptively reasonable detention period recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis, rather than treating him as newly subject to mandatory detention during a removal period. The governing regulations permit revocation in specified circumstances, but require notice of the reasons and a prompt informal interview allowing the noncitizen to respond.
The court found the September 1 revocation notice deficient. It repeated the regulatory phrase about changed circumstances and a significant likelihood of foreseeable removal without identifying concrete facts particular to Touma; none of the regulatory sub-boxes were checked, and the notice merely restated the changed-circumstances language. The government did not explain what had changed regarding Syria's willingness to accept him or provide an estimate for issuance of a travel document, and its travel-document request was submitted only after the re-detention. The court also found no evidence of a meaningful informal interview: without advance notice, counsel, or specific reasons for revocation, Touma could not meaningfully respond. It concluded that ICE failed to follow 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13 and that release on the previously applicable conditions was necessary to restore the status quo.
The relief was limited to the detention that began September 1, 2026. The court declined permanent prospective injunctive relief because any future re-detention would depend on changed circumstances and procedures not before it. It also held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred Touma's requests concerning execution of his removal order and credible-fear proceedings, while not barring his detention challenge. The petition was granted in part, immediate release on prior conditions was ordered, respondents were directed to file a notice of release within three court days, and all remaining requests for relief were denied.
Key Takeaways
- A revocation notice must provide specific information that gives the noncitizen a genuine opportunity to respond, rather than merely repeating regulatory language.
- The possibility of eventual removal did not establish a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future on this record.
- The court ordered release on Touma's prior supervision conditions but did not prohibit a future lawful re-detention under different circumstances and procedures.
- The detention ruling did not reopen Touma's credible-fear proceedings or prevent execution of his final removal order.
- Any application for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the lawfulness of renewed immigration detention from the government's authority to execute an existing removal order. It required ICE to comply with its own notice and interview procedures and to support its changed-circumstances rationale with case-specific information, while leaving potential future detention and immigration proceedings outside the granted relief.
The ruling reinforces that post-removal-period detention under § 1231(a)(6) remains subject to the Zadvydas due-process limitation, and that a conclusory notice of revocation cannot carry the government's burden of showing a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.