District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10226

#1

Jan 20, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11485206 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Cay Van Nguyen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Category Form)(Maguire, Claire) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#2

Jan 20, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson. (JKK) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#3

Jan 20, 2026

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (EZG) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#4

Jan 20, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than January 27, 2026. (Attachments: # 1 *SEALED* Appendix) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#5

Jan 20, 2026

Copy re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal mailed Antone Moniz, David Wesling and Todd Lyons on 1/20/2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

Jan 20, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jan 20, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Jan 27, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Jan 27, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#8

Jan 29, 2026

Memorandum re Petition

#9

Jan 29, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Nguyen entered the United States as a refugee in 1978 and later became a lawful permanent resident. ECF 1-1, ¶ 3. On February 11, 1994, following his incarceration, Nguyen was ordered removed to Vietnam. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. After Vietnam declined to accept him, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), on November 30, 2004, released Nguyen under an order of supervision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 because his removal could not be effectuated. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. Since then, Nguyen has consistently attended his required check-ins with ICE. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. During this time, Nguyen also attempted to obtain a passport from Vietnam, but his application was declined, as most recently documented in a December 15, 2025 letter from the Vietnamese consulate. ECF 1, ¶ 7; ECF 1-2, at 5.On December 16, 2025, ICE detained Nguyen when he appeared at the Burlington ICE Field Office for a routine check-in. ECF 1-1, ¶¶ 11-12; ECF 1, ¶ 8. Nguyen was then presented with a notice of revocation of release explaining that ICE had made “a determination that there are changed circumstances in [Nguyen’s] case” and “that the purposes of [his] release have been served and it is appropriate to enforce the removal order.” ECF 1, ¶ 10; ECF 1-1, at 6. Although Nguyen’s daughter presented ICE with the Vietnamese consulate’s December 15, 2025 letter declining Nguyen’s request for a passport, Nguyen remains in ICE’s custody at Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. ECF 1-2, ¶¶ 6-9; ECF 1-2, at 5; ECF 1-1, ¶ 12.Nguyen contends that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, one of the implementing regulations for 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). See ECF 1 . Section 241.13 works in tandem with Section 241.4 to govern the revocation of orders of supervision like the one issued to Nguyen in 2004. Where, as here, ICE has previously released the petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4, it may revoke that release if (i) the purposes of release have been served; (ii) the petitioner violates any condition of release; (iii) it is appropriate to enforce a removal order or to commence removal proceedings against the petitioner; or (iv) the conduct of the petitioner, or any other circumstance, indicates that release would no longer be appropriate. ECF 1-1, at 6; 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2); see also id. § 241.13(i)(2) (revocation permissible “if, on account of changed circumstances, [ICE] determines that there is a significant likelihood that [the petitioner] may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future”). Upon revocation, petitioners such as Nguyen are entitled to notice “of the reasons for revocation” and to an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation in an “initial informal interview promptly” following his or her detention. Id. §§ 241.4(l)(1), 241.13(i)(3).The respondents argue that Nguyen is lawfully detained pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4. They acknowledge, however, that “the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by other sessions of this Court in “Mota Ramos v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-13363-MJJ, Doc. No. 18 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2025) and Perez-Escobar v. Moniz, 792 F. Supp. 3d 224 (D. Mass. 2025).” ECF 7, at 1. In those cases, other sessions of this Court held that where, as here, “[t]he notice does not identify any specific changed circumstances” and ICE offers only “conclusory explanation[s] for revoking [the] Petitioner’s release,” the petitioner’s continued detention violates both § 241.4 and the petitioner’s due process rights. Perez-Escobar, 792 F. Supp. at 226. The respondents contend that “[s]hould the Court follow the reasoning in Mota Ramos and Perez-Escobar, it would reach the same result here.” ECF 7, at 1. The Court agrees with the reasoning of those decisions. ICE’s regulations require it to give “meaningful notice of the basis for its revocation” of Nguyen’s release. Perez-Escobar, 792 F. Supp. at 226. Here, its notice merely parrots the language of the regulation, and it fails to give Nguyen adequate notice as to why his particular release has been revoked. See ECF 1-1, at 6. ICE has, accordingly, failed to comply with its own regulation and is detaining Nguyen in violation of federal law and his due process rights. See Rombot v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388 (D. Mass. 2017) (“[W]here an immigration ‘regulation is promulgated to protect a fundamental right derived from the Constitution or a federal statute,’ like the opportunity to be heard, “and [ICE] fails to adhere to it, the challenged [action] is invalid.” (quoting Waldron v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 1993))).For the foregoing reasons, Nguyen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to release him from ICE’s custody immediately. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report on or before February 2, 2026, confirming that he has been released from custody. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

Jan 29, 2026

Order

#10

Jan 30, 2026

Status Report

#11

Jan 30, 2026

Judgment