govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-00200-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
ERMIN S., 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
CROW WING COUNTY JAIL and 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Respondents. 
 
 
Case No. 26-cv-200 (LMP/DLM) 
 
 
 
ORDER REJECTING  
REPORT AND 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
Ermin S., pro se. 
David R. Hackworthy and David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, 
Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent United States of America.1 
Petitioner Ermin S. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 12, 2026, 
alleging he is being detained unlawfully by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(“ICE”).  ECF No. 1.  On April 17, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko 
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Ermin S.’s petition be 
granted.  ECF No. 11.  The United States (the “Government”) filed objections to the R&R, 
ECF No. 13, and submitted additional evidence that was not in the record before Judge 
Micko, see generally ECF Nos. 13 -1, 13- 2.  Having considered the R&R and the 
Government’s objections and newly submitted evidence, the Court rejects the R&R and 
denies Ermin S.’s petition—not because the Court disagrees with Judge Micko’s analysis, 
 
1  Respondent Crow Wing County Jail has not appeared or otherwise participated in 
these proceedings.  As used in this Order, “Government” does not refer to or include the 
Crow Wing County Jail. 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 1 of 16
2 
 
but because the newly submitted evidence shows that  Ermin S.’s removal is significantly 
likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.  
FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 
Ermin S. is a native and citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Bosnia”).  ECF No. 10 
¶ 4.  He came to the United States as a refugee in 1996 and adjusted his status to that of a 
lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) in 1997.  Id. ¶¶ 5–6.  He has remained in the United 
States since he arrived, and is married to a United States citizen, with whom he has a child 
who is also a United States citizen.  ECF No. 1 at 7.  Since 2009, Ermin S. has amassed a 
lengthy criminal history, including convictions for domestic assault, driving while 
intoxicated, disorderly conduct, theft, and various drug-related offenses.  See ECF No. 13-2 
at 17–18. 
In December 2016, ICE arrested Ermin S. in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and served 
him with a Notice to Appear.  ECF No. 10 ¶ 11.  In May 2017, an immigration judge granted 
Ermin S. cancellation of removal.  Id. ¶ 13.  In May 2021, ICE again arrested Ermin S. and 
served him with a new Notice to Appear , and an immigration judge ordered Ermin S. 
removed to Bosnia  and denied all forms of relief.  Id. ¶¶ 17–18.  Ermin S. appealed the 
immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but he later withdrew 
the appeal, rendering the removal order administratively final.  See id. ¶¶ 19–20. 
 
2  The Court’s recitation of the factual background incorporates information contained 
in the Government’s newly submitted evidence.  See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(3) (stating that 
a district judge conducting a de novo review of a magistrate judge’s disposition “that has 
been properly objected to” may “receive further evidence”). 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 2 of 16
3 
 
Ermin S. remained in ICE custody until April 2022.  See id. ¶ 21; ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 6.  
At that time, ICE determined that it would be unable to remove Ermin S. to Bosnia because 
the Bosnian government could not verify Ermin S.’s Bosnian citizenship and, therefore, 
could not issue a travel document.  See ECF No. 10 ¶ 21; ECF No. 13-1 ¶  6.  As a result, 
ICE released Ermin S. from custody on an Order of Supervision (“OSUP”)  on April 20, 
2022.  ECF No. 13-1 ¶  6; ECF No. 13-2 at 1–7.  Under the conditions of the OS UP, 
Ermin S. was to report regularly to ICE, notify ICE of any change to his address, assist ICE 
in obtaining a Bosnian travel document, and refrain from committing any crimes.  ECF 
No. 13-2 at 3, 5.  On April 22, 2022, two days after his release on the OSUP, the Bosnian 
government confirmed Ermin S.’s citizenship but notified ICE that it required some form 
of valid, government-issued photo identification (“ID”) to issue a travel document for 
Ermin S.  ECF No. 13 ¶ 8. 
On May 20, 2022, ICE instructed Ermin S. to obtain a state-issued ID by 
September 1, 2022.  Id. ¶ 9.  Ermin S. reported to ICE on August 1, 2022, but he informed 
ICE that he left his ID at home.  Id. ¶ 10.  ICE confirmed through a records check that 
Ermin S. had either been issued or had applied for an ID.  ECF No. 10 ¶ 24.  ICE instructed 
Ermin S. to mail a copy of the ID and report again on September 15, 2022.  ECF No. 13-1 
¶ 10.  Ermin S. instead mailed ICE a copy of his workplace  ID and an expired LPR card.  
Id. ¶ 11.  ICE instructed Ermin S. to  obtain a valid state ID and  report in person on 
November 1, 2022, but when he reported to ICE on that date, he provided only a copy of 
his Bosnian birth certificate.  Id. ¶¶ 11–12.   
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 3 of 16
4 
 
ICE then instructed Ermin S. to apply for an Employment Authorization Document 
(“EAD”) with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) by 
February 1, 2023, and provided Ermin S. with contact information for a legal service 
provider to assist him in completing the application.  Id. ¶ 12.  Ermin S. did not complete 
the application by that date.  Id. ¶ 13.  Ermin S. appears to have completed the form and 
submitted it to USCIS after February 1, 2023 , but on May 2, 2023, Ermin S. reported to 
ICE with a letter from USCIS indicating that the EAD application form he submitted was 
an outdated version.  See i d. ¶ 14.  ICE directed Ermin S. to USCIS’s website to find the 
correct version of the form and instructed him to obtain  an EAD card by August 1, 2023, 
his next scheduled reporting date.  Id. 
Ermin S. did not report to ICE on August 1, 2023.  Id. ¶ 15.  On October 17, 2023, 
ICE attempted to contact Ermin S. at his last known phone number, but it was no longer in 
service, and ICE was unable to find a new phone number for Ermin S. through a records 
search.  Id. ¶ 16. 
On August 2, 2024, ICE learned that Ermin S. had been charged with felony 
burglary and theft in Otter Tail County, Minnesota.  Id. ¶ 17.  ICE contacted the Pelican 
Rapids Police Department to obtain Ermin S.’s address and discovered that it did not match 
the address in ICE’s records.  See id.  The Pelican Rapids Police Department also informed 
ICE that Ermin S. had a valid Minnesota driver’s license.  Id. 
On May 5, 2025, ICE learned that Ermin S. was being detained at the Otter Tail 
County Jail.  Id. ¶ 20.  ICE sent a call-in letter to Ermin S. and instructed him to report on 
June 11, 2025.  Id.; see ECF No. 13-2 at 8.  Ermin S. asked the jail staff to inform ICE that 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 4 of 16
5 
 
he would not be able to report on June 11 because he was still in custody.  ECF No. 10 
¶ 30; see ECF No. 13-2 at 17.  
On July 14, 2025, Ermin S. was convicted of felony theft in the Otter Tail County 
District Court, but the court stayed his sentence.  ECF No. 10 ¶  32.  The next day, ICE 
arrested Ermin S. at the Otter Tail County probation and parole office and served him with 
a notice of revocation of his OSUP.  Id. ¶¶ 33–34; ECF No. 13-2 at 9–10.  The revocation 
notice states that Ermin S.’s OSUP was revoked “[b]ased on recent discussions with the 
government of Bosnia-Herzegovina” which ICE believed created “a significant likelihood 
of [his] removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”  ECF No. 13-2 at 9.  ICE conducted 
an informal interview with Ermin S., but he declined to offer any statement.  Id. at 12. 
On September 15, 2025, ICE served an administrative warrant on the Minnesota 
Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) requesting a copy of Ermin S.’s Minnesota state 
ID.  ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 25.  The DMV responded on September 19, 2025, refusing to supply 
the ID without a judicial search warrant.  See i d.  On October 15, 2025, ICE submitted a 
travel document request to the Bosnian consulate, which remains pending upon ICE 
obtaining a valid, government-issued photo ID for Ermin S.  ECF No. 10 ¶¶ 37, 39.  As of 
April 22, 2026, ICE and USCIS had begun coordinating an expedited application for an 
EAD for Ermin S., which will satisfy the Bosnian consulate’s photo-ID requirement.  ECF 
No. 13-1 ¶ 27. 
On November 7, 2025, ICE served Ermin S. with a 90-Day Decision to Continue 
Detention Letter.  ECF No. 10 ¶ 38.  He was detained at the Crow Wing County Jail 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 5 of 16
6 
 
beginning December 18, 2025, ECF No. 13 -1 ¶  26, but was recently transferred to the 
Freeborn County Jail.3 
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
Ermin S., acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 12 , 
2026.  ECF No. 1.  In his petition, Ermin S. challenges his detention under 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1226(a) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  Id. at 6.  But 
Section 1226(a) does not apply to Ermin S. because he is subject to a final order of removal, 
so the Court ordered Ermin S. to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed .  
ECF No. 4.  In response, Ermin S. raised new arguments challenging his detention under 
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), arguing that his detention is unlawful because he 
has been in custody for more than six months and because his removal is not significantly 
likely in the reasonably foreseeable future due to the Government’s inability to obtain a 
travel document for him.  ECF No. 7 at 1–2.   
Because the Government had not yet answered the petition, the Court incorporated 
Ermin S.’s Zadvydas claim into his petition along with his initial due process claim and 
ordered the Government to respond.  ECF No. 8.  The Government timely responded.  ECF 
No. 9. 
Judge Micko issued the R&R on April 17, 2026, recommending that Ermin S.’s 
petition be granted and that the Court order his immediate release from custody .  ECF 
 
3  Ermin S. called the Clerk of Court to inform the Court of his new address at the 
Freeborn County Jail on May 27, 2025.  Ermin S. also informed the Court of his change in 
address in letters dated June 8, 2026, ECF No. 20, and June 12, 2026, ECR No. 21. 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 6 of 16
7 
 
No. 11.  Based on the record before him at the time, Judge Micko  determined that the 
Government had not met its burden to show “changed circumstances that made Ermin S.’s 
removal likely in the reasonably foreseeable future at the time of revocation.”  Id. at 14.  
Specifically, Judge Micko noted that the evidence in the record showed that “after ICE’s 
attempts to obtain travel documents and an ID for Ermin S. in 2022, it did not re-apply for 
documents until three months after the revocation of Ermin S.’s release,” meaning that 
“Ermin S.’s removability was substantively unchanged from the last time ICE had 
attempted his removal in 2022.”  Id. at 14–15. 
On April 22, 2026, the Government filed objections to the R&R, ECF No. 13, a new 
declaration from an ICE Deportation Officer, ECF No. 13-1, and documents from 
Ermin S.’s immigration records, ECF No. 13-2, which were not before Judge Micko at the 
time he took Ermin S.’s petition under advisement.   
On April 24, 2026, Ermin S. filed a letter to the Court stating that he had not received 
a copy of the R&R and asking for an update on this case.  See ECF No. 15.  In response, 
the Court issued an order on May 6, 2026, informing the parties that it would consider the 
Government’s newly submitted exhibits and sua sponte extending Ermin S.’s deadline to 
respond to the Government’s objections to May 26, 2026.  ECF No. 16 at 2–4.  In 
consideration of the “pattern of significant delays in delivering mail relating to this case to 
and from” Ermin S., the Court also ordered the Government to personally serve all relevant 
documents on Ermin S. by May 11, 2026.  Id. at 2–3.   
The Government timely served the documents on Ermin S. on May 8, 2026.  ECF 
No. 19.  However, on June 8, 2026, Ermin S. filed another letter stating that the “last 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 7 of 16
8 
 
information [he] got about [his] case” was the R&R, but he does not specify when he 
received the R&R.  ECF No. 20.  He also states that he has not received “any more 
information” about his case.  Id.  Just a few days later, however, on June 12, 2026, Ermin S. 
sent an additional letter to the Court.  ECF No. 21.  In it, he recognizes that Judge Micko 
had issued an R&R and “[d]ue to the Respondents’ objection to the R&R, it has triggered 
[] ‘de novo’ review.”  Id.  Ermin S. respectfully asked for an update on his case stating, 
“I’m sorry for any inconvinence [sic] I’m causing you, [but I] would like to know the 
outcome of my case.”  Id.    
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
If a party raises timely objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition 
of a dispositive issue, the presiding district judge must “make a de novo determination of 
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 
objection is made.”  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).  The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, 
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.  
Although the Court ordinarily “relies on the record of proceedings before the magistrate 
judge,” the Court may “receive further evidence” as part of its de novo review.  D. Minn. 
L.R. 72.2(b)(3).  Absent specific objections, the district judge reviews the magistrate 
judge’s recommendation for clear error. Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 
1996) (per curiam). 
ANALYSIS 
“Congress has granted federal district courts, ‘within their respective jurisdictions,’ 
the authority to hear applications for habeas corpus by any person who claims to be held 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 8 of 16
9 
 
‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’”  
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(3)). The 
protections of habeas corpus extend to those in immigration detention. See INS v. St. Cyr, 
533 U.S. 289, 305 (2001). 
I. Ermin S.’s June 8 and June 12 Letters 
Before turning to the merits of the Government’s objections, the Court must address 
Ermin S.’s assertion that he has not received any “information” about his case other than 
the R&R in his June 8, 2026 letter.  ECF No. 20.   
Acknowledging that delivery of mail to and from Ermin S. had been delayed in 
some instances, the Court sua sponte extended the deadline for Ermin S. to respond to the 
Government’s objections to the R&R and newly submitted evidence.  ECF No. 16.  It is 
worth clarifying, however, that the Court did not state, and did not intend to imply, that 
mail relating to this case was not being delivered to Ermin S. at all.  See id.  Indeed, 
Ermin S. received, and meaningfully responded to, the Court’s February 18, 2026 order 
seeking clarification regarding his petition.  See ECF No. 7.  Nor is there any indication in 
the record that mail sent from the Court to Ermin S.—which would include copies of all 
new filings to the docket—has ever been returned as undeliverable.  Moreover, the Court 
took the extraordinary step of ordering counsel for the Government to personally serve all 
documents relevant to the Government’s objections on Ermin S., ECF No. 16, and the 
Government timely certified its compliance with the Court’s order, ECF No. 19.  Given 
that the Government personally served the relevant documents on Ermin S. more than a 
month ago, ECF No. 19, and that, as a matter of course, the Clerk of Court would have 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 9 of 16
10 
 
promptly mailed copies of those documents when they were initially filed, the Court must 
conclude that Ermin S. has received at least two copies of every relevant filing in this case 
by now.4   
The Court took these steps to ensure that Ermin S. had a full and fair opportunity to 
respond to the Government’s objections and evidence.  And in his June 12, 2026 letter, 
Ermin S. acknowledged his clear understanding that Judge Micko had issued an R&R and 
that the Government had objected to it.  ECF No. 21.  Given this, the Court is satisfied that 
Ermin S. has received the case file and has had more than adequate time and opportunity 
to submit a meaningful response to the Government’s objections and evidence, but he has 
chosen not to do so.  The Court therefore proceeds with its de novo review of the R&R 
based on the record as -is.  This will allow Ermin S. “to know the outcome of [his] case.”  
Id. 
II. The Government’s Objections 
In situations where a noncitizen has been ordered removed from the United States, 
but ICE determines that “there is no significant likelihood that the [noncitizen] will be 
removed in the reasonably foreseeable future,” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(g)(1), ICE may not detain 
the noncitizen indefinitely, see Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699–700 (2001).  Instead, 
 
4  In fact, Ermin S. may have received three copies of each document.  In response to 
the Court’s order directing the Government to personally serve the documents on Ermin S., 
the Government initially mailed copies of the documents to Ermin S.  See ECF No. 17.  
After the Court clarified that it intended for the Government to personally serve the 
documents rather than serving them by mail, ECF No. 18, the Government certified that 
they “were personally served” on Ermin S. “by personnel of the Crow Wing County Jail,” 
ECF No. 19. 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 10 of 16
11 
 
the regulations require ICE to “promptly make arrangements for the release of the 
[noncitizen] subject to appropriate conditions,” typically in the form of an OSUP.  8 C.F.R. 
§ 241.13(g)(1).  An OSUP may be revoked, and the noncitizen may be re-detained, in two 
circumstances: (1) if the noncitizen violates the OSUP’s conditions; or (2) if circumstances 
change such that ICE determines the noncitizen’s removal is significantly likely in the 
reasonably foreseeable future.  Id. § 241.13(i)(1)–(2).  In either case —an OSUP violation 
or changed circumstances—ICE must notify the noncitizen of the “reasons for revocation 
of his or her release” and “conduct an initial informal interview promptly after [the 
noncitizen’s] return to [ICE] custody to afford the [noncitize n] an opportunity to respond 
to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification.”  Id. § 241.13(i)(3).  As part of that 
informal interview, the noncitizen “may submit any evidence or information that he or she 
believes shows there is no significant likelihood he or she [will] be removed in the 
reasonably foreseeable future, or that he or she has not violated” the OSUP.  Id. 
The core dispute here is whether ICE followed these regulations when it revoked 
Ermin S.’s OSUP in July 2025.  See Saengnakhone S. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-4775 (ECT/LIB), 
2026 WL 34132, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2026) (citing United States ex rel. Accardi v. 
Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265–68 (1954)) (“Agencies must follow their own 
regulations.”).  The R&R concludes that ICE did not follow the regulations because the 
Government had not met its burden to show “changed circumstances that made Ermin S.’s 
removal likely in the reasonably foreseeable future at the time of revocation.”  ECF No. 11 
at 14.   
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 11 of 16
12 
 
The Government first argues that it is Ermin S.’s burden, not the Government’s, to 
“demonstrat[e] there is no significant likelihood of removal.”  ECF No. 13 at 2.  The Court 
disagrees.  Ermin S. bears the burden of proving entitlement to habeas relief, see Walker v. 
Johnston, 31 U.S. 275, 286 (1941), but “the regulations at issue in this case place the burden 
on ICE to first establish changed circumstances that make removal significantly likely in 
the reasonably foreseeable future,” Roble v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 766, 772 (D. Minn. 
2025) (collecting cases).  As the Court explained in Roble: 
Absent specific statutory or regulatory language on the allocation of the 
burden of proof (as is the case in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2)), the Court is guided 
by the “default rule” that the burden falls on the party who “generally seeks 
to change the present s tate of affairs and who therefore naturally should be 
expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion.” 
Id. at 773 (quoting Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56 (2005)). 
The Government next argues that it properly revoked Ermin S.’s OSUP in 
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) by serving a notice of revocation on and 
conducting an informal interview with Ermin S.  See ECF No. 13 at 3.  But the R&R 
correctly notes that the “changed circumstances” cited in the notice of revocation—that 
Ermin S.’s removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future “[b]ased 
on recent discussions with the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina,” ECF No. 13-2 at 9—
did not actually exist at the time the Government revoked Ermin S.’s OSUP.  See ECF 
No. 11 at 14–15.  For example, the Government does not dispute that  in July 2025, when 
it revoked Ermin S.’s OSUP, it had not obtained a travel document for Ermin S.; had not 
obtained a valid, government-issued photo ID for Ermin S.; and had not, in fact, had 
“discussions” with the Bosnian government since  April 2022, when the Bosnian 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 12 of 16
13 
 
government informed the Government that it required a government -issued photo ID to 
issue a travel document for Ermin S.  See ECF No. 13 ¶  8.  The Court has ordered the 
release of petitioners in similar circumstances.  See, e.g., Roble, 803 F. Supp. 3d at 771, 
774 (ordering release of a noncitizen-petitioner where the notice of revocation of the 
petitioner’s OSUP “summarily assert[ed] that changed circumstances render[ed] [his] 
removal from the U.S. significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future” without 
evidence of any actual changed circumstances).  And to the extent the Government now 
asserts that it revoked Ermin S.’s OSUP because of his many apparent violations of the 
OSUP’s conditions, see ECF No. 13 at 3; ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 21, that justification is not even 
suggested, much less expressly stated, in the notice, see ECF No. 13-2 at 9.   
The Government nonetheless is correct that “a significant likelihood of removal 
exists” now.  ECF No. 13 at 3.  Ermin S. has been informed throughout the course of these 
proceedings, if not before he filed his petition, of the circumstances that have changed: 
(1) that the Bosnian government reassured the Government as recently as October 2025 
that it will issue a travel document for Ermin S. upon receipt of a government-issued photo 
ID for Ermin S., see ECF No. 10 ¶ 37; and (2) that as of at least April 2026, ICE has been 
working with USCIS to expedite the issuance of an EAD for Ermin S., which will “fulfill 
the government-issued photo ID requirement,” ECF No. 13-1 ¶  27.  Ermin S. knows very 
well why ICE revoked his release, and he has had the opportunity to respond to the 
Government’s objections and its newly submitted evidence in these proceedings , but he 
has not done so.  The Court therefore concludes that Ermin S.’s “procedural rights were 
honored in substance, if not in form.”  Somvang P . v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 13 of 16
14 
 
No. 26-cv-0037 (PJS/EMB), 2026 WL 788853, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2026).  As Chief 
Judge Patrick J. Schiltz explained in Somvang P .: 
[I]f the Court ordered that [Ermin S.] be released, ICE would have the right 
to take him back into custody immediately.  The only thing that would be 
accomplished is that ICE would have to give [Ermin S.] formal notice of 
something he already knows and give him an opportunity to tell ICE what he 
has already told them.  Nothing meaningful would be accomplished. . . .  In 
short, the Court sees no point in releasing [Ermin S.] for a couple of seconds 
so that “ICE may give [him] notice of changed circumstances that he has 
already litigated in this action.” 
Id. at *2–3 (quoting Saengnakhone S., 2026 WL 34132, at *5 n.5). 
To be sure, the Government could (and should) have been more diligent here, both 
in attempting to secure a photo ID for Ermin S. and in using more accurate and precise 
language in revoking Ermin S.’s OSUP.  It is unclear, for example, why the revocation 
notice offers only a vague reference to ICE’s purported “recent discussions with the 
government of Bosnia -Herzegovina” as the basis for revoking Ermin S.’s OSUP , ECF 
No. 13-2 at 9, rather than citing any (or all) of Ermin S.’s clear and repeated violations of 
the OSUP’s conditions, see, e.g., ECF No. 13-1 ¶¶ 7–13, 15–17, 21, each of which would 
have entitled the Government to revoke the OSUP, see 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1).   
That said, Ermin S. was warned at the time he was released on the OSUP that his 
failure to comply with the conditions of the OSUP, which included “assist[ing] U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement in obtaining any necessary travel documents,” 
could “result in [him] being taken into [ICE] custody.”  ECF No. 13-2 at 3, 5.  He has 
known for more than four years that the Government obtaining a government-issued photo 
ID for him was the only remaining obstacle to the Government securing a travel document 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 14 of 16
15 
 
for him and removing him to Bosnia.  See ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 8.  But during that time, Ermin S. 
has demonstrated a clear pattern of obstructing the Government’s efforts to do so.  See id. 
¶¶ 9–22; ECF No. 10 ¶¶ 23–30.  The Government now presents evidence that it is working 
expeditiously, through an agency fully within its control, to obtain a photo ID for Ermin S. 
that would “support the issuance of a travel document.”  ECF No. 13 ¶ 27.  And the Court 
cannot overlook that Ermin S. likely would have been removed already, and certainly 
would not be in the situation he is in now, had he complied with the terms of his OSUP 
from the beginning and cooperated in obtaining a photo ID.  In short, the Government’s 
inability to secure a travel document for Ermin S. and execute his removal order is a direct 
result of Ermin S.’s refusal to comply with the OSUP’s conditions, but the Government has 
sufficiently demonstrated that it is now positioned to obtain a travel document and, 
consequently, that Ermin S.’s removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable 
future. 
For these reasons, although the Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that ICE 
did not provide Ermin S. with adequate notice of the reasons for revoking his OSUP in 
July 2025, the Court does not believe Ermin S. is entitled to habeas relief.  Accordingly, 
the Court respectfully rejects the R&R and denies Ermin S.’s petition. 
ORDER 
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in this matter, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. The R&R (ECF No. 11) is REJECTED; 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 15 of 16
16 
 
2. Ermin S.’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; 
and 
3. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
 
Dated: June 18, 2026 s/Laura M. Provinzino  
 Laura M. Provinzino 
United States District Judge 
 
CASE 0:26-cv-00200-LMP-DLM     Doc. 22     Filed 06/18/26     Page 16 of 16

Passage view · GavelSight