District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-12368

#1

Aug 27, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11198507 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Hea Thai. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet civil cover sheet, # 2 Category Form category form, # 3 Exhibit Revocation of OSUP, # 4 Exhibit Denial of ICE Stay, # 5 Exhibit Employer Ltr - ROCA, # 6 Exhibit Dr Letter - Detailed, # 7 Exhibit Dr Letter RE Detention, # 8 Exhibit OSUP from 07.08.25, # 9 Exhibit Consular IV Compliance, # 10 Exhibit Emails - Cambodian Consulate, # 11 Exhibit OSUP Compliance Proof)(Roses, Susan) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

#2

Aug 27, 2025

NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are required to submit a form indicating whether the parties consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. The submission of the form is mandatory. Completed forms shall be filed promptly. The parties are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (JAM) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

#3

Aug 27, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (JKK) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

#4

Aug 27, 2025

Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. (EZG) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

#5

Aug 27, 2025

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 Jessica D. Hedges. (JAM) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

#6

Aug 27, 2025

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 September 4, 2025. (Attachments(s): # 1 *SEALED* Appendix) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

#7

Aug 27, 2025

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 6 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal mailed Antone Moniz, Patricia Hyde, HSI New England Michael Krol, Kristi Noem and Todd Lyons on 8/27/2025. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

Aug 27, 2025

Order Reassigning Case

Aug 27, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

Aug 27, 2025

Copy Mailed

Aug 27, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment to a Magistrate Judge

#8

Sep 02, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#9

Sep 03, 2025

Extension of Time

Sep 03, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#11

Sep 08, 2025

Response - not related to a motion

#12

Sep 08, 2025

Declaration

Sep 08, 2025

Order

#14

Sep 15, 2025

Reply to Response to Motion

#15

Sep 15, 2025

Reply to Response to Motion

Sep 15, 2025

Reply to Response to Motion

Sep 17, 2025

Notice of Hearing

#17

Sep 19, 2025

Appendix/Exhibit

#18

Sep 19, 2025

Notice of Appearance

Sep 22, 2025

Hearing - Other

#20

Sep 25, 2025

Response - not related to a motion

#21

Sep 25, 2025

Reply to Response to Motion

#22

Sep 29, 2025

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Hea Thai, a national of Cambodia, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking an order of immediate release from detention. ECF 1, ¶¶ 1, 6, 40; ECF 12, ¶ 6. For the reasons that follow, Thai's petition will be DENIED without prejudice at this time.Thai came to the United States as a refugee in 1984 but was placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) in 2010 following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C § 846. ECF 1, ¶¶ 1-2; ECF 12, ¶¶ 7, 17. An Immigration Judge ordered that Thai be removed to Cambodia in March 2011, and he did not appeal that order. ECF 1, ¶ 2; ECF 12, ¶ 8. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detained Thai from April 3, 2012 until July 10, 2012, when he was released on an order of supervision. ECF 1, ¶ 3; ECF 12, ¶ 9. ICE revoked that order on May 25, 2025 and detained him again through July 8, 2025, when he was released on another order of supervision and served with notice pursuant to the Chhoeun class action. ECF 12, ¶¶ 10-11; see Chhoeun v. Marin, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1242 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (discussing "temporary restraining order enjoining the government from re-detaining any" Cambodian nationals in the United States unless it "first provided written notice at least 14 days before detention"). When Thai reported for his scheduled check-in at ICE's office in Burlington, Massachusetts on August 26, 2025, he requested a stay of removal, which ICE denied, and was subsequently detained at the Plymouth County House of Correction in Plymouth, Massachusetts, where he remains. ECF 1, ¶¶ 5, 7, 14; ECF 12, ¶¶ 5, 12-13.Thai claims that his continued detention violates the Fifth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because his removal is not "reasonably foreseeable." ECF 1, ¶¶ 44-50. For its part, the government contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) applies and requires his detention for 90 days or, alternatively, that Section 1231(a)(6) and Supreme Court precedent permit his continued detention. The Supreme Court has "recognized detention during deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process" under the Fifth Amendment, Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003), and held that six months is a "presumptively reasonable period of detention" pursuant to Section 1231, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). After those six months, noncitizens like Thai may be released if they "'provid[e] good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future'" and the government fails to "rebut that showing." Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 529 (2021) (quoting id.). Even assuming, favorably to Thai, that Section 1231(a)(6) applies, habeas relief is not warranted at this time. It is undisputed that Thai is subject to removal. Thai further represents, and the government does not dispute, that ICE has detained him for nearly six months, in total, since 2012. See ECF 15, at 7 & n.2. His detention is therefore currently within "the presumptively reasonable six-month post-removal period set out in Zadvydas." G.P. v. Garland, 103 F.4th 898, 902 (1st Cir. 2024). The calculus shifts, however, on September 30, 2025, when he will have been detained, cumulatively, for over six months. ECF 15, at 7. Thai fails to demonstrate, in any event, that his "removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable" at this point. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699. ICE Assistant Field Office Director Keith Chan attests that ICE is now removing individuals to Cambodia, including at least fifty people this fiscal year, and that ICE "has determined that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future and will effectuate [Thai's] removal expeditiously when a travel document is received." ECF 12, ¶ 15. The government's counsel has, in turn, recently represented that "ICE has obtained a travel document for [Thai] from the government of Cambodia," ECF 20, ¶ 8, following his September 5, 2025 interview by the Cambodian Consulate, ECF 12, ¶ 14. This evidence collectively establishes that Thai's removal is reasonably foreseeable. See Thai v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11499-NMG, 2025 WL 1655489, at *3 (D. Mass. June 11, 2025) (Thai's "removal [was] foreseeable" where respondents had "removed at least 25 similarly situated aliens to Cambodia"); Zhen v. Doe, No. 25-cv-1507-PAB, 2025 WL 2258586, at *11 & n.22 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2025) (collecting cases holding that "requests for travel documents support a finding of reasonably foreseeable removal"). Thai separately asserts in his reply brief that ICE's revocation of his release failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l)(2) and 241.13(i)(2). But section 241.4, not section 241.13, applies when, as here, ICE "subsequently determines, because of a change of circumstances, that there is [now] a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future." 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(b)(4). Section 241.4, in turn, requires that the noncitizen "be notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release." 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(1). Invoking section 241.4, Thai's Notice of Revocation of Release states that "there are changed circumstances in [his] case," "ICE has determined that [he] can be removed from the United States," and "it is appropriate to enforce the removal order." ECF 1-3. These reasons are sufficient under the regulation "to afford [Thai] an opportunity to respond." 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(1). In any event, the government has now provided Thai, through this litigation, with more details about the changed circumstances, including his recent consular interview, that render his removal reasonably foreseeable. Thai next contends in his reply brief that David Wesling, who signed Thai's Notice with the title "(a) Field Office Director," lacked signatory authority under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4. See ECF 1-3. That regulation provides, in pertinent part, that the "Executive Associate Commissioner" or a "district director" has the discretion "to revoke release . . . to enforce a removal order." 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2)(iii). The references to this Commissioner and director are "deemed to include any person . . . designated in writing by [them] to exercise powers under this section." Id. § 241.4(c)(4). The "Commissioner" refers to the Director of ICE, and "district director" includes, as relevant here, the "field office director" if "that authority has been delegated to" him by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). Id. § 1.2. Relying on news articles and Wesling's declaration from March 2025, Thai argues that Wesling lacked such authority because he was "the acting Deputy Field Office Director" when he signed the Notice of Revocation of Release on August 26, 2025. ECF 21, at 2; see ECF 1-3; ECF 21-3, ¶ 1 (Wesling attesting that he was "an acting Deputy Field Office Director" on March 27, 2025). The government maintains, however, that Wesling was "the acting Field Office Director" at the time and, in that capacity, had been delegated authority to revoke Thai's release and detain him. ECF 20, ¶¶ 6-7. Based on the record, Wesling had signatory authority regardless of whether Thai or the government is correct about his title. That is so because the Secretary of DHS delegated to the Assistant Secretary of ICE "[a]uthority under the immigration laws, including . . . 8 U.S.C. . . . 1231," to "detain aliens" and "[a]uthority to reinstate . . . removal orders under . . . 8 U.S.C. 1231"). ECF 20-1, §§ 2(T), 2(Y). The Assistant Secretary of ICE, in turn, delegated to "Field Office Directors" and "Deputy Field Office Directors," "including those in an acting capacity," "[a]uthority under . . . 8 U.S.C. § 1231 . . . relating to detention and removal of aliens" and "reinstatement of removal." ECF 20-2, § 2(A)(2)(n).Accordingly, Thai's habeas petition, ECF 1, is DENIED without prejudice. The government is ORDERED to file a status report (1) within one week of Thai's removal, confirming that he has been removed, or (2) on October 29, 2025, detailing the status of Thai's removal, whichever is earlier. Should Thai remain in ICE custody by the time of the government's status report on October 29, 2025, he may reassert any of the arguments made in his habeas petition that challenge his ongoing detention pending removal. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 09/29/2025)

Sep 29, 2025

Order