Nguyen v. Bondi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BINH THAI NGUYEN,
Petitioner,
-vs-
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
) 	NO. CIV-26-0056-HE
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Petitioner Binh Thai Nguyen, a citizen of Vietnam, filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for preliminary review. Respondents filed a
response and petitioner replied.
On March 26, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. #19], recommending the court grant petitioner habeas relief under § 2241 and release
him from custody immediately under the terms of his previous Order of Supervision. In
so recommending, the magistrate judge determined (1) the court has jurisdiction to consider
the habeas petition, (2) ICE failed to abide by its regulations, whether 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)
or 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l), when it revoked petitioner’s Order of Supervision, making the
revocation unlawful, and (3) the court should join the majority of district courts that have
found such regulatory defects amount to due process violations that entitle a petitioner to
Case 5:26-cv-00056-HE Document 22 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
habeas relief. 	The magistrate judge further recommended the court order respondents to
certify compliance by filing a status report within five business days of the court order.
Respondents 	have 	timely 	objected 	to 	the 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	and
petitioner has responded [Doc. #20, Doc. #21]. 	Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
court has conducted a de novo review of the matter. 	Having done so, the court concurs
with the cogent analysis of the magistrate judge. The court finds no reason to repeat that
analysis here.
In their objection, respondents assert that if the court finds a regulatory violation
under either 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 or 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l), such violation was harmless error
and therefore immediate release is not an appropriate remedy. 	Specifically, respondents
assert petitioner cannot show that the government’s failure to abide by its own regulations
prejudiced him. 	However, as pointed out by petitioner, respondents did not raise the
harmless error argument before the magistrate judge. 	Consequently, the argument is
waived. 	Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10 th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the
first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation are deemed waived.”).
Respondents also assert that the government’s failure to comply with its regulations
does not permit relief under § 2241(c)(3). 	However, as recommended by the magistrate
judge and as concluded by other judges in this district, the court joins the majority view,
that the “‘regulatory defects amount to due process violations that entitled a petitioner to
habeas relief.’” 	Doc. #19, p. 17 (quoting Pham v. Bondi, Case No. CIV-25-1157-SLP,
Case 5:26-cv-00056-HE Document 22 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2025 WL 3243870, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 20, 2025)); see also Guerra v. Bondi, Case No.
CIV-25-1240-G, 2026 WL 114258, at *7 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 15, 2026). 1
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #19]. The
petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. #1] is GRANTED to the extent it requests habeas
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Respondents are DIRECTED to immediately release petitioner, subject to the terms
of his previous Order of Supervision. Respondents are further order to certify compliance
by filing a status report within five (5) business days of the date of this order.
A separate judgment will be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of April, 2026.
1 In light of the court granting habeas relief as recommended, the court agrees with the magistrate
judge and declines to address petitioner’s remaining arguments as to how the revocation of his
release or his detention is otherwise unlawful and his request for declaratory judgment and
permanent injunctive relief.
Case 5:26-cv-00056-HE Document 22 Filed 04/16/26 Page 3 of 3