Nguyen v. Archambeault et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Dong Van Nguyen,
Petitioner,
v.
Gregory J Archambeault, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04107-PHX-SHD (ASB)
ORDER
Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Injunctive Relief under
§ 2241 and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order challenging his immigration
detention.1 (Docs. 1-2.) In its November 4, 2025 Order, the Court ordered Respondents
to show cause (“the OSC”) why the Petition should not be granted. (Doc. 5.) The OSC is
fully briefed. (Docs. 7-8.) The Petition will be granted, and Respondents must
immediately release Petitioner from custody.
Petitioner is a citizen of Vietnam who came to the United States as a refugee on
February 25, 1992. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2.) His order of removal to Vietnam became final on July
27, 1999, and Petitioner was released from immigration detention on January 10, 2000 on
an order of supervision (“OSUP”). On June 24, 2025, ICE took Petitioner into custody “to
effectuate removal to Vietnam.” (Id. ¶ 21.)
In the November 4 OSC, the Court identified the regulatory provisions Respondents
were required to follow before redetaining Petitioner. Specifically, 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3)
1 Petitioner paid the filing fee for a habeas corpus action.
Case 2:25-cv-04107-SHD--ASB Document 9 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sets forth the following procedural requirements when revoking an order of supervision:
Upon revocation, the alien will be notified of the reasons for revocation of
his or her release. The Service will conduct an initial informal interview
promptly after his or her return to Service custody to afford the alien an
opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification.
In their response to the OSC, Respondents assert that on November 7, 2025, after
this action was filed, they provided Petitioner with notice of the reasons for the revocation
and an informal interview. Respondents further argue that any noncompliance with 8
C.F.R. § 241.13 is “harmless[] because the lapse in procedure was subsequently rectified
and even if this court were to order Petitioner to be released on this basis, ICE could detain
him again immediately.” (Doc. 7 at 7.) But Respondents implicitly acknowledge their
noncompliance with the regulation that required ICE to provide notice and conduct the
informal interview promptly after Petitioner’s redetention. That requirement is not an
abstract procedural technicality. The regulation required Respondents to conduct an
interview with Petitioner to afford him the “opportunity to respond to the reasons for
revocation.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). Respondents’ failure to comply with the governing
regulation is prejudicial in that, if the regulation had been followed, Petitioner would have
had a meaningful timely opportunity to no longer be detained. The delay of over four
months deprived Petitioner of the opportunity to challenge the reasons for his redetention.
Petitioner’s immediate release is required to return him to the status quo ante—“the last
uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” Yang v. Kaiser, No. 2:25-
CV-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); Hoac v.
Becerra, No. 2:25-CV-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771, at *7 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025);
see also Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2419288, at *28 (W.D. Wash.
Aug. 21, 2025) (ordering immediate release of noncitizen detained in violation of
regulations).
This decision is in accord with myriad other district courts to address this issue. See
Phan v. Noem, 3:25-CV-02422-RBM-MSB, 2025 WL 2898977, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10,
2025) (“The Court’s research indicates that every district court, except one, to consider the
Case 2:25-cv-04107-SHD--ASB Document 9 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
issue has ‘determined that where ICE fails to follow its own regulations in revoking release,
the detention is unlawful and the petitioner’s release must be ordered.’”; see, e.g., Rombot
v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 387–88 (D. Mass. 2017) (ordering the petitioner released
where, “[b]ased on ICE's violations of its own regulations, the Court concludes [the
petitioner’s] detention was unlawful”); K.E.O. v. Woosley, Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-74-
RGJ, 2025 WL 2553394, at *7 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 4, 2025) (noting “courts across the country
have ordered the release of individuals” in ICE custody where ICE “violated [its] own
regulations”); Grigorian v. Bondi, 25-cv-22914-RAR, 2025 WL 2604573, at *10 (S.D. Fla.
Sept. 9, 2025) (“The failure to provide [the petitioner] with an informal interview promptly
after his detention or to otherwise provide a meaningful opportunity to contest the reasons
for revocation violates both ICE’s own regulations and the Fifth Amendment Due Process
Clause. This compels [the petitioner’s] release.”); M.S.L. v. Bostock, 6:25-CV-01204-AA,
2025 WL 2430267, at *11 (D. Or. Aug. 21, 2025) (“ICE’s failure to provide Petitioner with
a timely Notice of Revocation or conduct an informal interview until nearly a month after
taking her into custody is a grave violation of Petitioner’s due process rights in that they
deprived her both of meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).
This leads to the second reason why Respondents’ failure is harmful: Respondents
do not dispute Petitioner’s detention is unreasonably prolonged. Nor could they—
Petitioner spent nearly six months in post-removal detention in 1999 and has spent nearly
five additional months in detention this year.
The United States Supreme Court has held that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 “does not permit
indefinite detention.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001). And if Petitioner
“provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to
rebut that showing.” Id. at 701. Petitioner argues it is not significantly likely he will be
removed to Vietnam in the reasonably foreseeable future because between “September
2021 to September 2023, Vietnam issued travel documents to only four pre-1995
Vietnamese immigrants whom ICE sought to deport.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 38.) Moreover, the
Case 2:25-cv-04107-SHD--ASB Document 9 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“process to secure a travel document from Vietnam for a pre-1995 immigrant is
multilayered and lengthy, requiring interviews and verification by authorities in Vietnam.”
(Id. ¶ 39.)
In its response brief, the Government argues the removal “process is in motion” and
Respondents have submitted a travel document request for Petitioner and requested
translation of Petitioner’s Vietnamese identity documents. Both of those requests remain
pending. (Doc. 7 at 6.) This is insufficient to establish Petitioner’s removal is significantly
likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents have therefore not met
their burden to show that Petitioner’s removal is likely to occur at all, much less in the
reasonably foreseeable future. See Seretse-Khama v. Ashcroft, 215 F. Supp. 2d 37, 50
(D.D.C. 2002) (government failed to rebut showing removal is not reasonably foreseeable
when they have not shown “that any travel documents are in hand, nor have they provided
any evidence, or even assurances from the Liberian government, that travel documents will
be issued in a matter of days or weeks or even months.”).
Because Respondents concede they did not timely comply with 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.13(i)(3) and the Court finds there is no significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Court will grant the Petition as to Counts Two and
Four and direct Respondents to release Petitioner from custody. The Court will deny the
remaining claims in the Petition as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1) is granted as to Counts Two and Four. The Petition is otherwise denied as
moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner must be released from immigration
custody immediately under the same conditions that existed prior to his redetention.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents must file a notice of compliance
confirming Petitioner’s release no later than 4:00 p.m. on November 25, 2025.
///
///
Case 2:25-cv-04107-SHD--ASB Document 9 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all pending motions are denied as moot and the
Clerk of Court must enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this case.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04107-SHD--ASB Document 9 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 5