District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10740

#1

Feb 11, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11544053 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Thanh Van Kim. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Petitioner, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Category Form Category Form)(Song, Lauren) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#2

Feb 11, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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. (SP) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#3

Feb 11, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#4

Feb 11, 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). (SEC) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

Feb 11, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Feb 25, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Feb 25, 2026

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

#7

Feb 27, 2026

Notice of Supplemental Authorities Response by Thanh Van Kim . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1: Nguyen v. Moniz, Case No. 26-cv-10741, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2: Gomes-Afonseca v. Lyons, Case No. 26-cv-10215)(Song, Lauren) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#8

Mar 06, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Thanh Van Kim ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 6, and Petitioner’s notice of supplemental authority, D. 7, the Court ALLOWS the Petition to the extent that it ORDERS Petitioner released on the same conditions previously imposed on him in the OSUP. Factual Background. Petitioner is a sixty-eight-year-old noncitizen from Vietnam currently detained at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 1 ¶¶ 1-2, 8, 15; D. 1-1 ¶¶ 1, 11. Petitioner entered the United States as a refugee in 1990 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991. D. 1 ¶ 1; D. 1-1 ¶ 2. In 1997, Petitioner pled guilty to a state criminal offense, and he was incarcerated until 2011. D. 1 ¶ 17; D. 1-1 ¶ 3. In or around 2008, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the United States, Vietnam began to accept repatriation requests for Vietnamese nationals subject to final orders of removal who had entered the United States after July 12, 1995. D. 1 ¶ 18. Because Petitioner arrived in the United States in 1990, the MOU does not apply to him. Id. In 2020, Vietnam and the United States entered into a further MOU that identified certain eligibility criteria to obtain travel documents for Vietnamese nationals who arrived in the United States prior to 1995. Id. ¶ 23. In approximately 2011, Petitioner was ordered removed to Vietnam by an immigration judge. Id. ¶ 19; D. 1-1 ¶ 4. Petitioner was subsequently released from immigration detention pursuant to an Order of Supervision ("OSUP"). D. 1 ¶ 20; D. 1-1 ¶ 5. Petitioner alleges that he has complied with the terms of his OSUP and further alleges that he received no notice that he was noncompliant or that he would be re-detained. D. 1 ¶ 26; D. 1-1 ¶ 10.On November 21, 2025, during a routine check-in, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") unexpectedly detained Petitioner. D. 1 ¶¶ 2, 25; D. 1-1 ¶¶ 11-14. As alleged, on information and belief, Respondents had not requested travel documents for Petitioner or taken other steps to facilitate his removal to Vietnam prior to his re-detention. D. 1 ¶ 24. Petitioner further alleges that, prior to and since his re-detention, he has received no notice of or interview regarding revocation of his OSUP or information regarding efforts to facilitate his removal to Vietnam. Id. ¶¶ 27-28; D. 1-1 ¶¶ 9, 17-19. He attests that "ICE officers also told [him] to sign a piece of paper which [he] could not understand because they did not offer or provide [him] with a Vietnamese interpreter," D. 1-1 ¶ 15, and that two days into his detention, he was given additional paperwork that he did not understand, id. ¶ 16. Petitioner alleges that his detention re-detention is unlawful, including because it is contrary to statute and regulation, D. 1 ¶¶ 37-40, and violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, id. ¶¶ 41-46. He requests release from detention, subject to the conditions of the OSUP. Id. at 15.Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context").When ICE intends to revoke supervised release under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, it must make "(1) an individualized determination (2) [that], (3) based on changed circumstances, (4) removal has become significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future." Kong, 62 F.4th at 619-20. Petitioner contends that ICE should have adhered to such process here and failed to do so. D. 1 ¶¶ 23, 33-40. In their abbreviated response, Respondents do not contest Petitioner's allegations but instead "submit that the legal and factual issues presented in this Petition appear similar to those examined by multiple other sessions of this Court" in which those sessions "ordered release from detention pursuant to an [OSUP] after determining that ICE had failed to demonstrate that removal to Vietnam was likely in the foreseeable future." D. 6 at 1-2 (citing Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144 (D. Mass. 2025); Huynh v. Wesling, No. 25-cv-13794-AK, 2026 WL 183467 (D. Mass. Jan. 23, 2026); Van Tran v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12546-ADB, 2025 WL 3724853 (D. Mass. Dec. 24, 2025)); D. 7 at 1-2. Respondents contend that those cases are likely dispositive here. Id. at 2. The Court agrees with the reasoning of the other sessions of this Court that have considered, and granted, petitions from similarly situated petitioners. See Nguyen, 788 F. Supp. 3d at 152-53; Huynh, 2026 WL 183467, at *6-7; Van Tran, 2025 WL 3724853, at *4. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, and ORDERS Petitioner released on the same conditions previously imposed on him in the OSUP.(LMH) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#9

Mar 06, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Mar 06, 2026

Order