govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02398-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
Mong C. ex rel. Uphaphon P.,  
 
   Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, 
Department of Homeland Security; 
Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
and David Easterwood, Acting Director, 
St. Paul Field Office Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, 
 
   R e s p o n d e n t s .  
Civil No. 26-2398 (DWF/ECW) 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Mong C.’s petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus (the “Petition”).  (Doc. No. 1.)  Respondents oppose.  (Doc. No. 5.)  For 
the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Petition. 
BACKGROUND 
Petitioner is a native of Laos who was born in Thailand.  (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1, 28.)  He 
entered the United States in November 1980, at just five-months-old.  (Id.)  He and his 
parents were admitted as refugees escaping Hmong persecution in Laos after the Vietnam 
War.  (Id.)  In May 1990, he adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident (“LPR”).  
(Id. ¶ 28; Doc. No. 6 ¶ 5.)  
CASE 0:26-cv-02398-DWF-ECW     Doc. 10     Filed 05/14/26     Page 1 of 7
2 
Petitioner has a criminal history.  In 2001, Petitioner pled guilty to second-degree 
murder committed for the benefit of a gang.  (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 30; Doc. No. 6-2 at 1.)  On 
April 15, 2002, Petitioner was served a Notice to Appear charging him with removability.  
(Doc. No. 6 ¶ 7.)  On December 13, 2004, as a result of the criminal conviction, 
Petitioner lost his LPR status and was ordered removed from the United States.  (Id. ¶ 8; 
Doc. No. 6-1.)  On January 14, 2019, Petitioner was released from his prison sentence 
and turned over to ICE custody for removal.  (Doc. No. 6 ¶ 9.)  However, because the 
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) was unable to get travel documents, 
Petitioner was released on an Order of Supervision (“OSUP”) on April 15, 2019.  (Id. 
¶ 10.)   
On January 2, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested 
Petitioner in front of his house in Fridley, Minnesota.  (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 5.)  On February 19, 
2026, Petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  (See id.)  Respondents 
argued that conditions had changed because Laos had recently begun issuing travel 
documents.  (See Doc. No. 6 ¶ 11.)  Explaining that Respondents did not have a concrete 
removal plan, the judge granted that petition and ordered Respondents to release 
Petitioner subject to the conditions of his 2019 OSUP.  Mong C. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-
1541 (D. Minn. filed Feb. 24, 2026).  Petitioner was released from ICE custody on 
February 25, 2026.  (Doc. No. 6 ¶ 15.)   
On March 2, 2026, the Embassy of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic issued a 
travel document for Petitioner.  (Id. ¶ 16.)  Then, in mid-April 2026, Petitioner received a 
letter ordering him to appear at the Whipple Federal Building.  (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 8.)  The 
CASE 0:26-cv-02398-DWF-ECW     Doc. 10     Filed 05/14/26     Page 2 of 7
3 
letter stated that the reason for the appointment was removal.  (Id.)  On April 28, 2026, at 
the scheduled check-in, Petitioner was again detained by ICE.  (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10.)  At that 
interaction, Petitioner was served with Form 71-091, a Notice of Revocation of Release, 
explaining that his release was being revoked because ICE had obtained travel documents 
and informing him that his removal was scheduled to occur by May 31, 2026.  (Doc. 
No. 6-4 at 1-2.)  Petitioner’s niece was present and asked the ICE agents for an 
administrative arrest warrant or the travel documents, neither of which the agents 
provided.  (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 9.)  Petitioner was then given an opportunity to respond to the 
reasons for revocation and provided a written statement that he was cooperative and 
wanted to be released to spend time with family.  (Doc. No. 6-4 at 3.)  Petitioner was 
taken into custody at Whipple.  (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 10.)  He is currently in detention at the 
Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota.  (Doc. No. 6 ¶ 19.)   
The Petition was filed the same day, April 28th.  (Doc. No. 1 at 17.)  The 
Petitioner is brought by Petitioner’s niece as a next friend and with the assistance of 
counsel.  (Id. ¶ 19.)  Petitioner asserts that his detention is unlawful because it violates the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the 
Fourth Amendment, and the Accardi doctrine.  (Id. ¶¶ 49-68.)  He requests immediate 
release from ICE detention.  (Id. at 16.) 
DISCUSSION 
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in 
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.  28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).  That 
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.  
CASE 0:26-cv-02398-DWF-ECW     Doc. 10     Filed 05/14/26     Page 3 of 7
4 
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896, 
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020).  The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a 
preponderance of the evidence.  See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 
1154 (D. Minn. 2025). 
Respondents invoke 8 U.S.C. § 1231 to justify Petitioner’s detention.  (Doc. No. 7 
at 4.)  Section 1231 provides that a noncitizen be detained following an order of removal.  
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A).  Petitioner does not dispute that he is subject to a removal 
order.  He is therefore subject to § 1231’s mandatory detention scheme.   
Detention under § 1231 is time limited.  A noncitizen with a final removal order 
can be detained for only ninety days, absent special circumstances warranting longer 
detention.  8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1), (a)(3); see also, e.g., Goaner W. v. Sec’y of Homeland 
Sec., No. 18-cv-1811, 2019 WL 11648600, at *3 (D. Minn. May 10, 2019) (discussing 
the time limits imposed by § 1231).  Because Respondents were not able to obtain travel 
documents previously, he was released on an OSUP as to not violate the time limits.  If a 
noncitizen is detained pursuant to § 1231 but then later released, there are only certain 
circumstances when ICE may revoke the OSUP.  The revocation of release is the focus of 
this case.  
Relevant here, ICE may revoke a noncitizen’s OSUP if circumstances have 
changed such that there is a significant likelihood that the noncitizen will be removed in 
the reasonably foreseeable future.  8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) (2026); see also Zadvydas, 533 
U.S. at 689, 701 (finding that detention of a noncitizen is warranted if the government 
shows that removal is reasonably foreseeable).  ICE bears the burden to show that 
CASE 0:26-cv-02398-DWF-ECW     Doc. 10     Filed 05/14/26     Page 4 of 7
5 
changed circumstances justify the redetention.  E.g., Garrison G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-
172, 2026 WL 157677, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2026).   
Petitioner challenges whether his removal is reasonably foreseeable.  His removal 
was not reasonably foreseeable before ICE obtained travel documents.  However, ICE 
has now obtained travel documents and plans to remove Petitioner this month.  That is 
reasonably foreseeable removal.  See, e.g., Kamara v. Kavanaugh, No. 18-cv-1520, 2018 
WL 4030645, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2018) (finding that petitioner’s removal was 
reasonably foreseeable because ICE had obtained travel documents); Ashok v. Price, 
No. 19-cv-160, 2019 WL 4702637, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 26, 2019) (same, collecting 
cases); cf. Yee S. v. Bondi, 806 F. Supp. 3d 894, 901-02 (D. Minn. 2025) (granting habeas 
relief because ICE was merely in the process of obtaining travel documents).  It was not 
unlawful for Respondents to revoke Petitioner’s release for changed circumstances.   
Relatedly, Petitioner challenges the process Respondents took when revoking the 
OSUP.  Upon revocation of a noncitizen’s release, the noncitizen must be notified of the 
reasons for revocation and afforded an initial informal interview to respond to the reasons 
for revocation promptly after their return to custody.  8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) (2026).  
Petitioner was served with a Notice of Revocation of Release that informed him that the 
procurement of travel documents was the reason for the revocation of his release.  (Doc. 
No. 6-4 at 1.)  Petitioner was then given an informal interview, during which he had the 
opportunity to respond to the reasons.  (Id. at 3.)  Petitioner has not shown that 
Respondents violated regulatory procedure or procedural due process in detaining him.   
CASE 0:26-cv-02398-DWF-ECW     Doc. 10     Filed 05/14/26     Page 5 of 7
6 
Finally, Petitioner challenges his arrest under the Fourth Amendment for lack of a 
judicial warrant.  Fourth Amendment analysis centers around reasonableness and is on a 
case-by-case basis.  See, e.g., Lange v. California, 594 U.S. 295, 301-02 (2021).  Here, 
Petitioner has not shown that his arrest was objectively unreasonable.  As explained 
above, immigration officers have authority to revoke an OSUP and return the noncitizen 
to custody.  See 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) (2026).  The warrant on which this custody is 
based is the warrant of removal that stemmed from the final administrative removal 
order.  See id. §§ 241.2 (explaining the basis of the warrant of removal), 241.3 
(explaining that custody under § 1231 is pursuant to a warrant of removal).  Petitioner 
does not dispute that he was ordered removed, given notice that his appointment was for 
removal, given a Notice of Revocation that detailed the reasons, and had the opportunity 
to respond during an informal interview.1  Petitioner is not entitled to relief on Fourth 
Amendment grounds.  The Court denies the Petition without prejudice. 
  
 
1  These circumstances are distinct from  those in the case relied on by Petitioner, 
Orellana v. Nobles County.  230 F. Supp. 3d 934 (D. Minn. 2017).  There, Petitioner was 
not subject to an order of removal, and the case therefore did not address revocation of 
release.   
CASE 0:26-cv-02398-DWF-ECW     Doc. 10     Filed 05/14/26     Page 6 of 7
7 
ORDER 
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 
that Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is respectfully DENIED 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
 
Dated:  May 14, 2026   s/Donovan W. Frank  
DONOVAN W. FRANK 
United States District Judge 
CASE 0:26-cv-02398-DWF-ECW     Doc. 10     Filed 05/14/26     Page 7 of 7

Passage view · GavelSight