Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ali Qasem Saleh Asaad, a Yemeni citizen who entered the United States around 2002, was ordered removed in 2003 after an immigration judge denied asylum. His appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals and Ninth Circuit were unsuccessful, making the removal order final. He was placed on an order of supervision in 2010, requiring ICE check-ins and compliance with other release conditions. Asaad also claimed an approved Form I-130 from March 2023 and prior Temporary Protected Status; the United States discontinued TPS for Yemeni citizens in 2026.
Asaad said he completed ICE check-ins on April 8, May 11, and June 15, 2026, and was allowed to remain in the country after each. ICE detained him during a routine check-in on August 27, 2026. He petitioned for habeas corpus and sought a temporary restraining order. The court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to show cause whether factual or legal differences from its prior decisions justified denying relief. Respondents argued that, unlike a cited third-country-removal case, Asaad was not subject to that process, and that his supervised release had been properly revoked.
The Court’s Holding
The court resolved the petition on Asaad's changed-circumstances claim rather than deciding the parties' factual disputes over revocation notice, delegated authority, required findings, and an informal interview. Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), ICE may revoke supervised release for removal when changed circumstances support a determination that removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court explained that ICE bears that burden because the earlier release reflected a prior assessment concerning removal feasibility or the public interest. It therefore asked whether respondents had identified a changed circumstance satisfying the regulation.
Respondents relied on ICE's effort to obtain a travel document for Asaad's expeditious removal to Yemen. The court found that insufficient in light of the 2003 removal order, the government's failure to remove him during the following 23 years, and his release on supervision. Respondents supplied no reason to believe removal had become significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Because ICE re-detained him without making the required showing, it failed to follow its own regulation. The court granted the habeas petition, ordered immediate release, barred re-detention absent material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker's finding of significantly likely foreseeable removal, and directed judgment for Asaad and case closure.
Key Takeaways
- Seeking a travel document did not, by itself, establish changed circumstances after more than two decades without Asaad's removal.
- The court placed the burden on ICE to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future when revoking supervised release under § 241.13(i)(2).
- The ruling rested on ICE's failure to comply with that changed-circumstances regulation, not a resolution of the disputed notice and informal-interview issues.
- Immediate release was accompanied by a specific restriction on future detention rather than an unconditional prohibition on re-detention.
- Any re-detention requires material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker's determination that removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Why It Matters
The order applies agency-regulation compliance principles to immigration re-detention: ICE's generalized intention to pursue travel documents cannot replace evidence explaining why removal has become significantly likely after a prolonged inability to remove someone. The court relied on the particular history of Asaad's 2003 removal order, supervised release, and the government's lack of a new explanation.
The decision also distinguishes the basis for relief from issues left unresolved. Although the parties disputed the adequacy and timing of revocation paperwork and the informal interview, the court granted habeas on the changed-circumstances claim. Its forward-looking restriction identifies both substantive and decisionmaker requirements for any later detention, while the Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Asaad, close the case, and serve the Fresno ICE Field Office.