govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00056-1

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 deten tion 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 fo r preliminary review.  Respondents filed a 
response and petitioner replied. 
 On March 26, 2026, the magistrate j udge 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 ap propriate remedy.  Specifically, respondents 
assert petitioner cannot show that the government’s failure to abide by its own regulations 
prejudiced him.  However, as pointed ou t by petitioner, respondents did not raise the 
harmless error argument before the magistrate  judge.  Consequently, the argument is 
waived.  Marshall v. Chate r, 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 reco mmended 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 pr ocess 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 pe titioner’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

Passage view · GavelSight