1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KOUKEO SPHABMIXAY, Case No.: 25cv2648-LL-VET

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Department

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241

of Homeland Security; PAMELA JO 15 BONDI, Attorney General; TODD M. [ECF No. 1] 16 LYONS, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; JESUS 17 ROCHA, Acting Field Office Director of 18 San Diego Field Office; CHRISTOPHER

J. LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa

19 Detention Center, 20 Respondents. 21 22 23 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Koukeo Sphabmixay’s Petition for Writ of 24 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The matter is fully briefed, and the 25 Court deems it suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant 26 to Civil Local Rule 7.1. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ 27 of Habeas Corpus, DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and 28 ORDERS Petitioner’s immediate release from custody. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a citizen of Laos who came to the United States with his family as 3 refugees in 1980. ECF No. 1, at 2. They soon became lawful permanent residents. Id. 4 In 1998, he was convicted of discharging a firearm and drug possession. Id. Then he was 5 ordered removed by an immigration judge, spending several months in detention while ICE 6 attempted to remove him. Id. at 2–3. When Laos failed to issue him a travel document, he 7 was released on supervision in early 2000. Id. He complied with all check-in appointments 8 and did not commit any crimes for the next 25 years. Id. at 2. Still, on August 7, 2025, ICE 9 arrested him at his regularly-scheduled supervisory appointment. Id. Petitioner swears that 10 they did so without telling him “why they were detaining [him],” an “informal interview,” 11 or a “chance to contest [his] detention.” ECF No. 1, at 25. These failings, Petitioner argues, 12 violated ICE’s own regulations which state that:

13 The Service may revoke an alien’s release under this section and return 14 the alien to custody if, on account of changed circumstances, the Service determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien may be 15 removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. . . . Upon revocation, the 16 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 17 or her return to Service custody to afford the alien an opportunity to 18 respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification.

19 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i)(2)–(3), 241.4(l). 20 Therefore, on October 6, 2025, Petitioner sought his release though a writ of habeas 21 corpus on three grounds: (1) that his detention is unlawful under Zadvydas v. Davis, 22 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231; (2) that he was denied an explanation, interview, 23 and chance to respond when he was re-detained, violating ICE’s rules and his constitutional 24 due process rights; and (3) that ICE may seek to remove him to a third country without 25 notice and an opportunity to be heard. ECF No. 1, at 9–20. Petitioner moved for appointed 26 counsel and a temporary restraining order as well. ECF No. 3. The Court has since granted 27 in part his requests, appointing Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent him and 28 enjoining the Government from removing Petitioner to a third country. ECF Nos. 5, 14. 1 Last week, the Government indicated that it had secured travel documents for Petitioner’s 2 removal to Laos. ECF No. 12. The Cout thus finds that claims one (Zadvydas) and three 3 (removal to a third country) are moot, and will just consider the second claim (due process). 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 A. Jurisdiction 6 Courts have long had jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus to petitioners held 7 in custody “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 8 28 U.S.C § 2241(c)(3). In doing so, we carry out the “historic purpose of the writ,” namely 9 “to relieve detention by executive authorities without judicial trial.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 10 699. The Government argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide this case. 11 ECF No. 7, at 4 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)). But the Supreme Court has consistently 12 “rejected” the Government’s suggestion that § 1252(g) covers all claims arising from 13 deportation proceedings or imposes a general jurisdictional limitation. Dep’t of Homeland 14 Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 19 (2020). Had Petitioner sought to 15 challenge the Government’s decision to execute his removal order, it would indeed bar this 16 Court’s review. But because he only contests his detention resulting from violations of the 17 Government’s mandatory duties under certain statutes, regulations, and the Constitution, 18 the Court has jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention. See Arce v. 19 United States, 899 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e have limited [§ 1252(g)]’s 20 jurisdiction-stripping power to actions challenging the Attorney General’s discretionary 21 decisions to initiate proceedings, adjudicate cases, and execute removal orders.”). 22 B. Due Process 23 The Cout finds that the Government has violated its own regulations under 24 § 241.13(i) and § 241.4(l). First, ICE must determine that the detainee is significantly likely 25 to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future “on account of changed circumstances.” 26 § 241.13(i)(2). The Government asserts that it has assessed that changed circumstances 27 will result in Petitioner’s removal to Laos in the reasonably foreseeable future. “While that 28 may certainly be the case now, § 241.13(i)(2) requires that this determination is made 1 before the removable alien has had his release revoked.” Tran v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2391- 2 BTM-BLM, 2025 WL 3005347, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025). The record does not show 3 that a changed-circumstances determination was made at or before Petitioner’s re-detention 4 on August 7, 2025. Even if ICE assessed the likelihood of Petitioner’s removal before 5 revoking his release, it would not have been “on account of” changed circumstances. The 6 Government, in fact, did not even submit a request to Laos for travel documents until 7 August 18, 2025—more than a week after re-detaining Petitioner. With “no evidence of an 8 actual determination of changed circumstances that justified the initial revocation of 9 [Petitioner’s] release,” the Government has violated its own rule under § 241.13(i)(2). 10 See id. (finding the same). 11 Second, an alien must “be notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release” 12 that are actually “stated in the notification.” § 241.13(i)(3); see Tran, 2025 WL 3005347, 13 at *3 (holding that this “notice must be in writing and contain all the reasons for the 14 revocation of the alien’s release”). The Government suggests that it need not have provided 15 anything more than its DHS I-213 form. However, the Government is silent on whether it 16 gave Petitioner a copy of this form at or reasonably close to his arrest. In addition, the 17 I-213 merely states that Petitioner’s arresting officers told him that “he was being placed 18 under arrested [sic] based on his final order of removal.” ECF No. 7-2, at 3. Such a notation 19 “memorializes that [Petitioner] was advised that he was arrested based on his previous 20 order of removal but does not state that he was advised of the reasons supporting the 21 revocation of release,” if any. Tran, 2025 WL 3005347, at *3. This bare-bones explanation 22 does not contain reasons for the revocation of Petitioner’s release, so it does not satisfy the 23 “the due-process notification requirement of § 241.13(i)(3).” See id. (finding the same). 24 Finally, after re-detaining an alien who was out on supervision, ICE must “promptly” 25 conduct “an initial informal interview” to “afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the 26 reasons for revocation.” § 241.13(i)(3). Apart from ICE not having reasons to re-detain 27 him based on changed circumstances, Petitioner also declares that they did not tell him 28 “why they were detaining [him]” or afford him the requisite “informal interview” as a 1 “chance to contest [his] detention.” ECF No. 1, at 25. These failings, too, violated 2 Petitioner’s due process rights. See Tran, 2025 WL 3005347, at *3 (finding the same); 3 see also Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914) (“The fundamental requisite of due 4 process of law is the opportunity to be heard.”); Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155, 172 5 (2021) (“If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot 6 be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.”). 7 The Government does not seem to dispute that it has failed to follow its own rules 8 for re-detainment, instead arguing that “even assuming the agency’s compliance with the 9 regulations fell short,” it is not enough to release Petitioner back on supervision pending 10 his deportation to Laos in the reasonably foreseeable future. See ECF No. 7, at 7. However, 11 courts “have found that when ICE fails to follow its own regulations in revoking release, 12 the detention is unlawful, and the petitioner’s release must be ordered.” Truong v. Noem, 13 No. 25-cv-2597-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 2988357, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2025) (collecting 14 cases). This is so even when, as here, the Government has obtained a petitioner’s travel 15 document back to his or her country of origin after their re-detainment. See id. at *1–6 16 (granting habeas and releasing the petitioner with a deportation order back on supervision 17 when the respondents failed to comply with § 241.13(i) and § 241.4(l) despite later securing 18 travel documents for his country of origin); Tran, 2025 WL 3005347, at *1–4 (same). 19 Because Respondents failed to comply with § 241.13(i) and § 241.4(l) when they 20 revoked Petitioner’s supervised release, issuing a writ to reinstate that release is warranted. 21 This will be “without prejudice” to the remedies that Respondents may otherwise have, 22 namely their readiness to deport Petitioner to Laos in the coming weeks. See Tran, 2025 23 WL 3005347, at *3. Given Petitioner’s “apparently unblemished record” the last 25 years, 24 “Respondents may exercise their discretion to allow him to say goodbye to his family, 25 settle his affairs, and report for his removal.” See id. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 1 || The Government shall immediately release Petitioner from custody on the August 7, 2025 2 ||revocation of release and arrest. Petitioner shall comply with all conditions that were in 3 effect before his August 7, 2025 re-detainment. By October 31, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., the 4 || parties must also file a joint status report to confirm that Petitioner has been released, after 5 || which the Clerk will close this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: October 30, 2025 NO 8 DE 9 Honorable Linda Lopez 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28