Immigration – Habeas corpus

Listen to this article

Where a petitioner from Vietnam has alleged that he is being unlawfully detained, his habeas corpus petition should be granted because the respondents have not established a reasonable likelihood of the petitioner’s removal in the foreseeable future pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §241.13(i)(2).

“Before the Court is Petitioner Long Thuc Huynh’s Writ of Habeas Corpus. … Petitioner alleges he is being unlawfully detained in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1231 and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. For the reasons below, Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 1] is granted. …

“Petitioner is a noncitizen from Vietnam who has lived in the United States for approximately thirty-seven years. … Petitioner was fathered by an American soldier during the Vietnam War and grew up in Vietnam where he faced significant discrimination as an ‘Amerasian’ child. … In 1988, at 16 years old, Petitioner entered the United States as a Lawful Permanent Resident under an AM1 status. … In 1996, Petitioner pleaded guilty in a federal criminal case in the Northern District of California. … As a result, on January 30, 1998, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service served a Notice to Appear to commence removal proceedings against Petitioner and transferred him to immigration custody. … On or around May 4, 1998, Petitioner was ordered removed to Vietnam by an Immigration Judge due to his criminal conviction. … Petitioner appealed this order but withdrew the appeal around November 1998. … In 1999, while Petitioner was still in immigration detention, immigration officials tried to request travel documents for his removal to Vietnam; however, Vietnam would not accept him for removal even after he filled out paperwork to request travel documents. … Petitioner was released in or around August 1999 on an order of supervision. …

“In 2008, the United States and Vietnam signed a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) allowing for the deportation of certain Vietnamese nationals with final orders of removal who entered the United States after July 1995, under which Petitioner was not eligible for repatriation. … In or about April 2009, Petitioner’s order of supervision was revoked, and he was placed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘ICE’) Custody. … The Court has not been informed about the reason for Petitioner’s 2009 re-detention. On or about November 2009, Petitioner was again released from ICE custody on an order of supervision. …

“In 2020, the United States and Vietnam signed a subsequent MOU to accept certain individuals with removal orders who arrived in the United States prior to July 1995. … However, individuals must meet specific requirements listed in the MOU before Vietnam will issue travel documents. …

“On December 2, 2025, Petitioner emailed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘ICE’) for a pre-scheduled check in, as required by his order of supervision. … In response, ICE instructed him to go to the ICE Boston Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts. … After arranging transportation and attending a necessary medical appointment, on December 10, 2025, Petitioner went to his check-in as requested. … At the check-in, Petitioner completed a form to assist with the request for his travel documents and provided ICE officers with requested personal information. … Petitioner was informed that he was being taken into custody because Vietnam is accepting some people for deportation. … The record does not contain evidence that Petitioner was provided with a Notice of Revocation of Release. After filling out the requested paperwork, Petitioner was arrested and placed in immigration custody and detention. …

“… After the issuance of Petitioner’s order of removal in 1999 and re-detention in 2009, he was released under an order of supervision. Therefore, by the plain language of the statute, his re-detention is subject to Section 1231(a)(3) and its implementing regulations. …

“… Petitioner challenges the likelihood that he will be deported within a reasonable period of time. … ICE is, therefore, subject to the constraints of Section 241.13. …

“To meet their burden under Section 241.13, Respondents must show (1) a change circumstance in Petitioner’s case and (2) that changed circumstance has resulted in a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. … Respondents have not established either. …

“In light of the factors enumerated in Section 241.13(f), Respondents have not established that Petitioner was reasonably likely to be removed in the foreseeable future pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §241.13(i)(2). …

“When a noncitizen’s detention is not in compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1231 and its implementing regulations, the appropriate remedy is release from custody. … Accordingly, the appropriate remedy in this case is release. …

“For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 1] is granted. Respondents are hereby ordered to release Petitioner pursuant to the order of supervision that was in effect prior to his re-detention.”

Huynh v. Wesling, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-038-26) (14 pages) (Kelley, J.) (Civil Action No. 25-CV-13794-AK) (Jan. 23, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.