Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Chau Hong Le, a native and citizen of Vietnam who entered the United States as a refugee in 1985, was ordered removed in 1999. After the government could not effectuate removal to Vietnam, he was released on an order of supervision (OSUP). ICE re-detained and re-released him multiple times for OSUP violations, most recently releasing him on July 15, 2018. On August 17, 2026, ICE revoked his OSUP under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) based on multiple felony convictions violating release conditions. The next day, ICE served a notice of revocation, conducted an informal interview, and re-detained him at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center.
Le filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 13, 2026, challenging the lawfulness of his detention. The court set a briefing schedule and directed the respondent to address whether any law or fact distinguished the case from prior decisions. Respondent opposed, arguing detention was authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) due to the lawful revocation of OSUP under regulations governing re-detention of noncitizens ordered removed.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition, finding Le's detention unlawful because the OSUP revocation was authorized by an official lacking regulatory authority. The revocation notice cited 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l), not § 241.13, and § 241.4(l)(2) expressly limits revocation authority to the Executive Associate Commissioner or a district director. The record showed an assistant field office director authorized the revocation. Following Tanashyan v. Mullin, 2026 WL 2538250 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2026), and M.S.L. v. Bostock, 2025 WL 2430267 (D. Or. Aug. 21, 2025), the court concluded an assistant field office director is not a "district director" under the regulation. Because ICE failed to follow its own regulations, the revocation was invalid and the resulting detention unlawful.
The court ordered respondent to immediately release Le on the same conditions applicable before his August 18, 2026 re-detention, and enjoined re-detention absent exigent circumstances without notice and a hearing before a neutral adjudicator. The motion to appoint counsel was denied as moot. The court noted but did not reach due process concerns regarding the same-day informal interview, citing H.R.G.A. v. Rios, 2026 WL 3094310 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2026), and M.P.P.P. v. Santacruz, 2026 WL 1601908 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2026), because the lack of authority was dispositive.
Key Takeaways
- ICE must comply with its own regulations when revoking an order of supervision; revocation by an unauthorized official renders subsequent detention unlawful.
- An assistant field office director does not qualify as a "district director" authorized to revoke release under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2).
- A noncitizen detained pursuant to an invalid OSUP revocation is entitled to immediate release on prior conditions and injunctive protection against re-detention without notice and a hearing.
- Courts in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere have consistently held that OSUP revocations by assistant field office directors exceed regulatory authority.
- Due process concerns arise when the government conducts the required informal interview on the same day as revocation and re-detention, effectively barring the noncitizen from presenting evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that immigration detention authority is strictly limited by regulatory text and that the government cannot delegate revocation power to officials not specified in the regulation. It aligns with a growing body of case law in the Ninth Circuit and other jurisdictions holding that assistant field office directors lack authority to revoke orders of supervision under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2). The ruling provides a clear procedural safeguard: even where a noncitizen has violated supervision conditions, the government must follow its own rules, including proper authorization and meaningful process, before re-detaining. The injunction against re-detention without a hearing before a neutral adjudicator adds a layer of protection against summary re-incarceration.