Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Thanh Dui Tran, a native of Vietnam, entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1990 when he was four or five years old. He was ordered removed in 2008 following a substance-related conviction, but was released from immigration detention in January 2009 on an order of supervision. His supervision initially required check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement every three to six months and later only once a year. The order recounts his longstanding struggles with addiction, mental health, homelessness, and repeated involvement in the criminal justice system.
In 2024, Tran was arrested on substance and firearm possession charges. He was convicted on March 12, 2025, sentenced to three years in state prison, and later granted early release on parole. About twelve days before his scheduled December 16, 2025 release, ICE requested a hold pursuant to a charge of "Illegal Entry," despite his having entered lawfully as an LPR. ICE detained him when state custody ended and revoked his supervision order without providing an explanation or a Notice of Revocation of Release.
Tran filed his habeas petition in October 2026 after more than ten months in immigration detention. He raised procedural and substantive due process claims, challenges under immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act, objections to third-country removal without safeguards, and an unlawful-subdelegation claim. He sought immediate release or restoration of his prior supervised status. Respondents filed no timely opposition. After the court ordered them to show cause why the petition should not be granted as unopposed, they stated that they were not presenting an opposition argument.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition based on Respondents' non-opposition and its prior reasoning concerning re-detention of noncitizens released on supervision. It construed the failure to oppose Tran's claims as a concession that he was entitled to relief, citing Martinez v. Sessions and other decisions treating unaddressed arguments as waived or conceded. The court did not separately adjudicate every claim or alternative theory presented in the petition.
Relying on Trieu v. Mullin, the court stated that immigration regulations permit the government to re-detain a noncitizen released on an order of supervision only when it can demonstrate changed circumstances showing that removal is reasonably foreseeable. Because Respondents offered no opposition, the court found that the government had not met its burden to show changed circumstances justifying revocation of Tran's supervision. It therefore concluded that his re-detention violated immigration law and due process.
The court ordered judgment granting the petition and issuance of a writ requiring Tran's immediate release, subject to the conditions of his prior supervision order, together with return of property confiscated during his arrest and detention processing. It further ordered that Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner unless they have obtained a travel document for his removal and provided him adequate notice, an interview, and an opportunity to be heard consistent with governing regulations. Respondents also must file a status report within three days confirming his release.
Key Takeaways
- The government's express decision not to present an opposition was treated as a concession that Tran was entitled to habeas relief.
- The court found no demonstrated changed circumstances making removal reasonably foreseeable and therefore no lawful justification for revoking Tran's supervision order.
- The ruling rested on non-opposition and the court's prior Trieu reasoning rather than an independent resolution of every constitutional and statutory theory in the petition.
- Immediate release was ordered under the conditions of Tran's prior supervision, along with return of property confiscated during arrest and detention processing.
- Any future re-detention requires a travel document and procedural protections including adequate notice, an interview, and an opportunity to be heard.
Why It Matters
The decision provides a case-specific application of the principle that a habeas petitioner may obtain relief when the government declines to defend challenged detention. It also reinforces the court's stated requirement that changed circumstances and reasonably foreseeable removal justify re-detaining someone released on an order of supervision.
The order supplies concrete release and compliance requirements while limiting future re-detention. Its reasoning is narrow: the court relied on the government's concession and existing precedent, leaving the petition's other claims without separate developed analysis. The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Michael B. Kaufman.