Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bounmy Vue, a noncitizen proceeding without counsel, filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his July 2026 re-detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Vue was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in September 1989. In June 2009, he was convicted of corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child's parent, exhibiting a deadly weapon, and cruelty to child by endangering health. Based on that conviction, an immigration judge ordered Vue removed to Laos in June 2012 under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), and Vue waived appeal of the removal order.
Vue was detained but not removed, and was released on September 25, 2012 on an order of supervision. One condition of release was that he not commit any crimes. After release, Vue was convicted of multiple crimes, including possession of a firearm by a felon in 2013 and 2015, residential burglary in 2014, and resisting an officer in 2024. On July 9, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security issued a written notice of revocation of release based on Vue's violation of the no-crimes condition, citing his multiple convictions. Vue signed the notice and was re-detained that same day.
Vue filed his habeas petition and a motion to appoint counsel on August 11, 2026. Respondents answered on August 20, 2026, and Vue filed a traverse on September 8, 2026. After Vue moved for a temporary restraining order on September 23, 2026, the district court denied that motion on October 6, 2026, concluding that respondents properly revoked Vue's release based on post-release convictions and that detention of less than six months remained presumptively reasonable while respondents pursued a travel document from Laos. The district court referred the matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge construed Vue's pro se petition as challenging his re-detention on two grounds: first, as a Fifth Amendment due process violation because he was detained without a pre-deprivation hearing and removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future; and second, as a violation of 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l). Because the record had not changed since the district court's temporary-restraining-order ruling, the magistrate judge found no basis to depart from those prior findings.
The magistrate judge recommended that the habeas petition be denied, finding that the government properly revoked Vue's order of supervision for violating the condition that he not commit crimes. The court relied on Vue's multiple post-release convictions, the July 9, 2026 written notice identifying the violation and convictions, and documentation that Vue received an informal interview. The court also found that Vue is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), that he was re-detained on July 9, 2026, and that his detention is not prolonged because he has been detained for less than six months.
The magistrate judge declined to decide whether removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because the revocation was based on Vue's violation of a release condition through new criminal convictions, not on changed circumstances. Separately, the court ordered that Vue's motion for appointment of counsel be denied without prejudice, concluding that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
Key Takeaways
- The government may revoke an order of supervision and re-detain a noncitizen who violates a release condition by committing crimes after release.
- A written notice of revocation identifying the violation and the noncitizen's convictions, together with an informal interview, supports revocation of supervised release.
- Detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) for less than six months is not prolonged while the government pursues travel documents from the removal country.
- When revocation is based on new criminal convictions rather than changed circumstances, a court may decline to analyze whether removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- There is no absolute right to counsel in habeas proceedings, and the magistrate judge ordered denial of Vue's counsel motion without prejudice because the interests of justice did not require appointment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the streamlined revocation process for noncitizens released on orders of supervision: written notice identifying the violation and an informal interview can support re-detention after post-release criminal convictions. It also shows that detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) for less than six months is treated as not prolonged while removal travel documents are pursued.
Procedurally, the document is a mixed magistrate-judge ruling: the habeas denial is only a recommendation subject to objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), while the denial of appointed counsel is an operative order without prejudice. The ruling therefore does not finally resolve the habeas petition by itself.