Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Bee Yang filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 on September 24, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).Yang had been ordered removed to Laos in 2008 and was subsequently released on an order of supervision (OSUP).On September 15, 2026, ICE re-detained Yang to effect his removal, asserting it had obtained a travel document permitting removal to Laos.
Yang moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking immediate release the same day he filed his petition.The court set a briefing schedule on September 25, 2026, and temporarily enjoined Yang’s transfer or removal to maintain the status quo.Respondent opposed the TRO, conceding the 2008 removal order and OSUP release but arguing that the newly obtained travel document created a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, justifying continued detention under 8 C.F.R.§ 241.13(i).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Yang’s motion for a temporary restraining order, finding he was not likely to succeed on the merits of his habeas claim.The court determined that a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future existed because ICE had obtained a valid travel document allowing removal to Laos in accordance with the 2008 removal order.
The court dissolved its prior temporary injunction barring transfer or removal and referred the matter to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.The court noted that if Yang is not expeditiously removed, he may file a renewed request for release properly alleging that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.If Yang has been removed, respondent is directed to notify the court and request dismissal of the petition as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The court applied the four-factor Winter standard for preliminary injunctive relief and found petitioner failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits.
- Detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is justified when ICE possesses a valid travel document creating a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, per 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
- The court’s prior temporary injunction against transfer/removal was dissolved upon denial of the TRO.
- The court preserved petitioner’s right to file a renewed release request if removal is not carried out expeditiously.
- The matter was referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on the underlying habeas petition.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of the ‘significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future’ standard in post-removal-order detention cases where a travel document has been obtained.The court’s reliance on the existence of a valid travel document as sufficient to establish foreseeable removal aligns with precedent in the Eastern District of California (Phan v.Becerra) and Southern District of California (Bui v.Warden).The ruling preserves the petitioner’s ability to challenge prolonged detention if removal does not materialize promptly, consistent with Zadvydas v.
Davis principles limiting indefinite detention.The referral to the magistrate judge indicates the underlying § 2241 petition remains pending for further adjudication.The ruling was limited to interim relief: the underlying habeas petition remained referred to the magistrate judge, and the court expressly allowed a renewed release request if removal did not occur expeditiously.The court relied on ICE possession of a valid Laos travel document, not merely the existence of an old removal order.Counsel evaluating a later challenge would therefore need evidence about whether removal remained realistically imminent after the promised date passed.