District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10850

#1

Feb 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11549723 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Poch Vann. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4)(Custer, Lindsay Marie) Modified on 2/13/2026 to edit docket text (SR). (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#2

Feb 13, 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (SP) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#3

Feb 13, 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: 02/13/2026)

#4

Feb 13, 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 February 20, 2026. (Attachments: # 1 *SEALED* Appendix) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#5

Feb 13, 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 to Todd Lyons, David Wesling and Antone Moniz. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Feb 13, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Feb 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Feb 20, 2026

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

#8

Feb 23, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner is given leave to file a reply brief on or before February 26, 2026. In addition or instead, both parties may file status reports on or before February 26, 2026 indicating whether the interview with the Cambodian Embassy took place on February 23, 2026 and, if so, the anticipated timeline of any travel document from the Cambodian government. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Order

#9

Feb 26, 2026

Status Report

#10

Feb 26, 2026

Memorandum of Law

#11

Mar 02, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Poch Vann, a native of Cambodia, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 13, 2026. ECF 1 ; ECF 1-5, ¶ 2. Vann entered the United States in 1985 as a refugee and later became a lawful permanent resident. ECF 1-5, ¶ 3. In 1995, while incarcerated, Vann was ordered removed to Cambodia. Id. ¶¶ 4-6; ECF 1-4, at 2. When his term of criminal custody ended, Vann was transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody in 1998 or 1999. ECF 1-5, ¶ 5. Around that time, ICE attempted to remove Vann to Cambodia, but Cambodia declined to accept him. Id. ¶ 8; ECF 1, ¶¶ 29, 31. After over six months in ICE detention, Vann was released in 2000 pursuant to an order of supervision because his removal to Cambodia could not be effectuated. ECF 1-5, ¶¶ 7-9; ECF 1, ¶ 6; ECF 7-1, ¶ 8. Since then, Vann has complied with the terms of his release and has attended regularly scheduled check-ins with ICE. ECF 1-5, ¶¶ 10-11.In November 2025, at one of his regularly scheduled check-ins, ICE informed Vann that its latest efforts to obtain a travel document for him from the Cambodian authorities had been unsuccessful and instructed him to obtain a travel document by the second week of December 2025. ECF 1, ¶¶ 35-37; ECF 1-6, ¶¶ 4-5. Despite his efforts, Vann was unable to do so; the Cambodian Embassy informed Vann’s partner that it lacked the necessary documentation to issue him a travel document. ECF 1, ¶¶ 38-39; ECF 1-6, ¶¶ 6-8. After Vann relayed this information to ICE at his check-in on December 11, 2025, he was issued a Notice to Removable Alien notifying him that ICE intended to re-detain him to execute his final removal order and remove him to Cambodia. ECF 1-3, at 2; ECF 1, ¶ 40. He was instructed to present himself at ICE’s Burlington Field Office for detention on January 5, 2026. ECF 1-3, at 3.On January 5, 2026, ICE detained Vann upon his arrival at the Burlington Field Office. ECF 1-5, ¶ 13. The next day, Vann was transferred to the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Id. He was presented with a notice of revocation of release explaining that ICE has made “a determination that there are changed circumstances in [Vann’s] case” and “that the purposes of [his] release have been served and it is appropriate to enforce the removal order.” ECF 1-4, at 2; ECF 7-1, ¶ 11. The same day, an ICE officer conducted an informal interview with Vann, informing him of the reasons for the revocation of his release. ECF 7-1, ¶ 11.More than a month later, on February 13, 2026, ICE scheduled Vann’s Nationality Interview with the Cambodian Embassy for February 23, 2026. Id. ¶ 14. That interview did not occur because of the snowstorm and state-imposed travel ban. ECF 9, at 1. The interview has not been re-scheduled, and ICE does not have a travel document for Vann or any timeline for when such a document might be obtained. Id. Meanwhile, Vann remains in ICE’s custody at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility. See ECF 10, at 5.Vann claims that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), and one of the statute’s implementing regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, because ICE failed to provide him with adequate notice of the basis for his revocation and deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Section 241.13 typically governs orders of supervision issued when the government determines “that there [was] no significant likelihood that the alien [would] be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, despite the [government’s] and the alien’s efforts to effect removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(g)(1). Such releases may be revoked “if, on account of changed circumstances, the [government] determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. § 241.13(i)(2).The respondents contend that 8 C.F.R. § 241.4, not Section 241.13, governs the revocation of Vann’s release because it “appear[s]” that he was originally released “pursuant to custody review required under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4, and not due to a finding of no significant likelihood of removal under Section 241.13.” ECF 7, at 5. Section 241.4 permits ICE to revoke an alien’s release if “(i) The purposes of release have been served; (ii) The alien violates any condition of release; (iii) It is appropriate to enforce a removal order or to commence removal proceedings against the alien; or (iv) The conduct of the alien, or any other circumstance, indicates that release would no longer be appropriate.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2).The Court need not determine which regulation governs the revocation of Vann’s release, because under either Section 241.4 or 241.13, petitioners such as Vann are entitled to adequate notice “of the reasons for revocation” and 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). These regulations require ICE to give “meaningful notice of the basis for its revocation” of Vann’s release. Perez-Escobar v. Moniz, 792 F. Supp. 3d 224, 226 (D. Mass. 2025).The respondents acknowledge that “the legal issues presented in the Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court in Nguyen v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-10226-JEK (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2026) and Huang v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-10125-JEK (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2026).” ECF 7, at 1. Here, as in Nguyen, Huang, and other cases decided by this Court, the Notice of Revocation, although using the words “changed circumstances,” does not identify any specific changed circumstances and offers only a conclusory explanation for revoking Vann’s release. ECF 1-4, at 2; see Perez-Escobar, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 226. The Notice merely parrots the language of the regulation; it fails to give Vann notice of any particular facts underlying its decision to revoke his release. As this Court concluded in Huang and Nguyen, such a wholly non-specific notice does not satisfy the respondents’ regulatory responsibility to give meaningful notice of the basis for revocation.The respondents nevertheless insist that this case is factually distinct from Nguyen and Huang because ICE “took steps to prepare the travel document request and to obtain a travel document for [Vann] to Cambodia” by scheduling a Nationality Interview with the Cambodian Embassy. ECF 7, at 2-3. But these steps do not cure the inadequacies of the Notice provided to Vann. In the weeks preceding Vann’s detention, ICE told Vann that its latest efforts to obtain a Cambodian travel document for him had failed, and Vann notified ICE that, despite his own attempts, the Cambodian Embassy had declined to issue him a travel document. Nor does ICE’s scheduling of a Nationality Interview suggest that Vann will receive the necessary travel document or be removed at any time in the foreseeable future. That interview was cancelled and has not been rescheduled.At bottom, Vann has been detained for nearly two months and is no closer to having his removal to Cambodia effectuated than he was in 1998. None of the steps taken by the respondents appear to have altered the fact that neither ICE’s efforts nor Vann’s efforts to acquire the requisite travel documentation have succeeded, and the notice Vann received provides no explanation for ICE’s decision to revoke his release under these circumstances.ICE has, accordingly, failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13 and is detaining Vann 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)). Vann’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, is therefore 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 March 3, 2026, confirming that he has been released from custody. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#12

Mar 02, 2026

Status Report

Mar 02, 2026

Order

#13

Mar 03, 2026

Judgment

#14

Apr 10, 2026

Notice of Appearance