District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11040

#1

Feb 27, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11578554 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Sophal Phy. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit 1 Removal Order, # 4 Exhibit 2 Order of Supervision, # 5 Exhibit 3 EARM Case Comments, # 6 Exhibit 4 Notice to Removable Alien, # 7 Exhibit 5 RI Habeas Judgement, # 8 Exhibit 6 Notice of Revocation) (Corbaci, Christina) Modified on 3/2/2026: to edit & remove duplicate docket text (EZG). (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#2

Mar 02, 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 M. Page Kelley. (CM) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#3

Mar 02, 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: 03/02/2026)

#4

Mar 02, 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 March 9, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#5

Mar 02, 2026

Copies re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal mailed to David Wesling, Todd Lyons, Michael Krol, Antone Moniz and Kristi Noem on 3/2/2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Mar 02, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Mar 03, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Mar 09, 2026

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

#8

Mar 09, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Sophal Phy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 27, 2026. ECF 1 . Phy’s nationality is unclear because he was born in a refugee camp in Thailand to Cambodian parents. Id. ¶ 13. Phy entered the United States in 1983 as a refugee and became a lawful permanent resident in 1985. Id. ¶ 15. In 2001, Phy received a criminal conviction and was ordered removed to Thailand Id. ¶¶ 16-17; ECF 1-3. After over six months in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detention, Phy was released in 2002 pursuant to an order of supervision because his removal to Thailand could not be effectuated. ECF 1, ¶ 18; ECF 1-4. Since then, Phy has complied with the terms of his release and has attended regularly scheduled check-ins with ICE. ECF 1, ¶¶ 18-19; see ECF 1-5, at 2. In the period since his release, the government has repeatedly tried and failed to obtain a travel document for Phy, despite his continued cooperation with those efforts. ECF 1, ¶¶ 18, 20-21; ECF 1-5, at 2 (documenting failed attempts in August 2010, May 2014, February 2016, and most recent attempt in October 2025).On December 10, 2025, at one of his regularly scheduled check-ins, ICE detained Phy on the basis that his release was being revoked. ECF 1, ¶¶ 22, 29. On January 28, 2026, Phy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. ECF 1, ¶ 24. The U.S. Attorney’s Office indicated that it did not oppose Phy’s petition because he was a class member of Chhoeun v. Giles, No. 17-cv-01898-CJC (GJSx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2024). Id. Accordingly, Phy was released on February 3, 2026 and served with a notice to removable alien informing him of ICE’s intent to detain him no earlier than 14 days from the notice. Id.; ECF 1-6. He was instructed to present himself at ICE’s Burlington Field Office for detention on February 27, 2026. ECF 1, ¶ 24.On February 27, 2026, ICE detained Phy upon his arrival at the Burlington Field Office. ECF 1, ¶ 26. That day, ICE presented Phy with a notice of revocation of release explaining that ICE had decided that “[i]t is appropriate to enforce the removal order entered against [him]” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) and that “[c]ircumstances have changed such that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) because “ICE is seeking a travel document to effect [his] expeditious removal to Cambodia.” ECF 1-8, at 1-2. ICE officers also orally informed Phy that they had scheduled a video interview between him and Cambodia for the following week, a necessary step for them to request a travel document from Cambodia. ECF 1, ¶ 28. There is no basis in the record to conclude that that interview took place. See ECF 7, at 1 (government response not mentioning interview and acknowledging that this case is similar to Vann v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-10850-JEK (D. Mass. Mar. 2, 2026), where interview was scheduled but cancelled). Phy remains in ICE’s custody in Massachusetts. ECF 1, ¶ 6.Phy claims that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment because it was not justified by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) or its implementing regulations, 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13. 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). 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).Under both Section 241.4 and 241.13, petitioners such as Phy 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 Phy’s release. Perez-Escobar v. Moniz, 792 F. Supp. 3d 224, 226 (D. Mass. 2025).The respondents acknowledge that “the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those recently addressed by the Court” in Vann v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-10850-JEK (D. Mass. Mar. 2, 2026). ECF 7, at 1. Like the petitioner in Vann, Phy has been detained for approximately two months, since early December, and is no closer to having his removal effectuated than he was in 2002. ECF 11, Vann, No. 26-cv-10850-JEK. And as in Vann, “[n]one of the steps taken by the respondents appear to have altered the fact that neither ICE’s efforts nor [Phy’s] efforts to acquire the requisite travel documentation have succeeded, and the notice [Phy] received provides no explanation for ICE’s decision to revoke his release under these circumstances.” Id. Instead, the notice merely parrots the language of the regulations; it fails to give Phy notice of any particular facts underlying its decision to revoke his release. As this Court concluded in Vann, such a wholly non-specific notice does not satisfy the respondents’ regulatory responsibility to give meaningful notice of the basis for revocation. Id. ICE has, accordingly, failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13 and is detaining Phy 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)). Phy’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 11, 2026 confirming that he has been released from custody. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

Order

#9

Mar 10, 2026

Status Report

#10

Mar 10, 2026

Judgment