Nguyen v. Unknown Party

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Loc Huu Nguyen,
Petitioner,
v.
Luis Rosa, Jr.,
Respondent.
No. CV-26-02365-PHX-KML (CDB)
ORDER
On April 6, 2026, petitioner Loc Huu Nguyen filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. (Doc. 1.) That petition argued Nguyen’s continued detention was unlawful because
there was no significant likelihood he would be removed to his home country of Vietnam.
The court issued an order to show cause requiring respondent to explain why the petition
should not be granted. That order required any response “be supported by documentary
evidence including, if applicable, affidavits signed under penalty of perjury by individuals
with personal knowledge of the factual statements made therein.” (Doc. 3 at 2.)
Respondent’s response argued Nguyen was not entitled to relief because he had
been “issued a travel document and is scheduled for removal from the United States to
Vietnam on May 5, 2026.” (Doc. 7 at 4.) In support of that assertion, respondent provided
a declaration from Robert E. Jones, a deportation officer at the Florence Detention Center
where Nguyen is housed. (Doc. 7-1 at 1.) As relevant here, Jones’s declaration stated it was
“based on [his] personal knowledge” and his review of “government databases and
documentation relating to Mr. Nguyen’s file.” (Doc. 7-1 at 2.) Based on that review, Jones
Case 2:26-cv-02365-KML--CDB Document 15 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
stated: “[o]n April 3, 2026, [Headquarters Removal and International Operations] advised
ICE that a [travel document] was issued and Nguyen was scheduled for a charter flight on
May 5, 2026, to be removed from the United States to Vietnam.” (Doc. 7-1 at 5.)
On April 30, 2026, Nguyen filed a “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Motion to Enforce Compliance with the Order to Show Cause.” (Doc. 13.) Nguyen seeks
a temporary restraining order prohibiting his removal from the United States until
respondent provides “satisfactory travel documents to support respondent’s assertion that
his removal will be executed in a manner consistent with due process.” (Doc. 13 at 6.)
According to Nguyen, respondent did not comply with the court’s order to show cause
requiring the production of evidence from someone with personal knowledge. Nguyen
argues the declaration uses the passive voice and “resort[s] to hearsay,” which “invite[s]
questions about the provenance of the travel document” at issue. (Doc. 13 at 3.) The portion
of Nguyen’s motion requesting compliance with the order to show cause requests the court
order respondent produce documents, especially the travel document the government will
use to remove Nguyen on May 5, 2026.
Generally, a court analyzes a request for a temporary restraining order under two
slightly-different tests. First, it must evaluate if there is a likelihood of success on the
merits, if there is a likelihood of irreparable harm, whether the balance of equities tips in
the movant’s favor, and whether an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Second, a court must assess whether
“serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply
in the plaintiff’s favor” in addition to showing “a likelihood of irreparable injury and that
the injunction is in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,
1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Nguyen’s motion fails at the first step under either formulation.1
1 There is a threshold issue involving the substance of Nguyen’s complaint and his request
for injunctive relief. A restraining order is appropriate to grant “intermediate relief of the
same character as that which may be granted finally,” but relief is not proper when it is
requested on matters lying wholly outside the issues in the suit. DeBeers Consol. Mines v.
United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on
claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an
injunction.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633
(9th Cir. 2015). Here, the complaint seeks relief in the form of release from custody while
Case 2:26-cv-02365-KML--CDB Document 15 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Whether viewed as a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going
to the merits, Nguyen has not carried his burden. At the core of Nguyen’s motion for
injunctive relief is the assertion that respondent did not comply with the court’s order
requiring evidence be based on personal knowledge. In the present circumstances, the
declaration by Jones states it is based at least in part on personal knowledge and is sufficient
to show there is a reasonable likelihood of removal in the near future. That was all that is
required at this point.
Jones’s declaration reflects he personally reviewed the available information and
determined there is a travel document that will allow for Nguyen’s removal to Vietnam.
Although it would have been preferable for Jones to attest to his personal review of the
travel document itself, or for the government to file a copy of the travel document, Nguyen
does not present any convincing basis to believe the planned removal to Vietnam is not
authorized by a valid travel document nor any evidence that he might be removed to some
other country. The present record does not show Nguyen is likely to succeed on his
argument that his removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, nor does it show
serious questions going to the merits. If Nguyen is not removed to Vietnam on May 5,
2026, he may file an appropriate motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 10) is GRANTED
and Assistant Federal Public Defender Keith Hilzendeger is appointed to represent
petitioner in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Extension (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.
Petitioner shall file his reply in support of the petition for writ of habeas corpus no later
than May 13, 2026.
the request for temporary restraining order seeks relief in the form of a prohibition on his
removal from the United States. There may not be a sufficient relationship “between the
injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying
complaint” to permit granting the relief sought in the motion. Id. at 636. But the court need
not resolve that issue because the motion fails on other grounds.
Case 2:26-cv-02365-KML--CDB Document 15 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.
13) is DENIED.
Dated this 1st day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02365-KML--CDB Document 15 Filed 05/01/26 Page 4 of 4