Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Thanh Lai Ngoc Nguyen, a Vietnamese national with a 2001 removal order and a criminal record including a 2021 methamphetamine trafficking conviction, was taken into ICE custody on November 24, 2025. ICE revoked his 2013 order of supervision based on the 2021 conviction, which violated the conditions of his release. In denying an earlier habeas petition, the court had concluded that ICE could detain Nguyen for at least six months under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) due to this violation. That six-month period has since expired.
On September 30, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations granting Nguyen's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, concluding that continued detention was no longer authorized because removal was not reasonably foreseeable. Respondents filed timely objections reiterating prior arguments, including that Nguyen should exhaust administrative remedies by seeking review from the Headquarters Post-order Detention Unit. The district court conducted a de novo review of the record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full, granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus on Ground Four. The court held that Respondents bear the burden of demonstrating changed circumstances justifying continued detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) once the initial six-month period under § 241.13(i)(1) expires, citing Yan-Ling X. v. Lyons, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2025). Respondents failed to meet this burden: although they applied for travel documents on April 30, 2026, nearly six months passed with no progress, and they offered no evidence estimating when Vietnam might process the application or accept repatriation of someone with Nguyen's history. The court noted numerous district courts have granted habeas relief to Vietnamese detainees under similar circumstances.
The court also waived the prudential exhaustion requirement, finding it futile to require Nguyen to seek release through administrative procedures given Respondents' stated position that he remains subject to continued detention, citing El Rescate Legal Servs. v. Exec. Office of Immigration Review, 959 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1991). The court ordered Nguyen's immediate release under appropriate conditions of supervision and enjoined Respondents from re-detaining him under § 241.13(i)(2) unless material changed circumstances arise and a neutral decisionmaker determines a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Once the initial six-month detention period under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) expires, the government bears the burden of proving changed circumstances and a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future to justify continued detention under § 241.13(i)(2).
- A travel document application pending for nearly six months with no progress and no evidence of likely repatriation is insufficient to meet the government's burden for continued post-removal detention.
- Prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies may be waived as futile when the agency's position on the issue is already fixed and administrative review would likely yield the same result.
- Courts in the Eastern and Central Districts of California have consistently granted habeas relief to Vietnamese nationals where removal is not reasonably foreseeable due to Vietnam's refusal or failure to accept repatriation.
- An injunction against re-detention under § 241.13(i)(2) requires material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker's determination of a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the statutory limits on indefinite immigration detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13. By requiring the government to present concrete evidence of likely removal—not merely a pending travel document application—the court ensures that detention remains tethered to its statutory purpose of effectuating removal. The ruling also affirms that futility excuses exhaustion where the agency has already committed to a position of continued detention, preventing detainees from being trapped in procedural loops while their liberty interests are at stake.