Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SOMVANG P.,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY, Department of Homeland
Security; TODD M. LYONS, Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Field Office
Director, St. Paul Field Office, in his official
capacity; ERIC TOLLEFSON, Sheriff,
Kandiyohi County, in his official capacity;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents.
Case No. 26‐CV‐0037 (PJS/EMB)
ORDER
Robert H. Meyers, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDER, and Caleb
Waugh, for petitioner.
David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, for all
respondents except Eric Tollefson.
This matter is before the Court on the federal respondents’ objection to the
January 31, 2026 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Elsa M.
Bullard. Judge Bullard recommends that petitioner Somvang P.’s petition for a writ of
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 9

habeas corpus be granted. 1 ECF Nos. 11, 12. The Court has conducted a de novo
review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court
rejects the R&R and denies the petition—not because the Court disagrees with anything
that Judge Bullard said, but because, in light of information that came to light after she
issued her R&R, the Court finds that Somvang’s removal to Laos is significantly likely
to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future and that Somvang’s procedural rights were
honored in substance, if not in form.
As described in the R&R, Somvang has long been subject to an administratively
final removal order authorizing his removal to Laos. In 2001, however, Somvang was
released on an order of supervision—apparently because Laos would not grant
permission for him to be repatriated. ECF No. 11 at 2. ICE has always had authority to
revoke Somvang’s supervised release, but only in certain circumstances, and only by
following certain procedures. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1)–(3); Saengnakhone S. v. Noem,
No. 25‐CV‐4774 (ECT/LIB), 2026 WL 34132, at *3–5 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2026) (explaining
that 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) provides the proper regulatory framework for an alien who is
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) but then released on an order of supervision); see
also Roble v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 766, 771 (D. Minn. 2025) (“Once ICE releases a
1Pursuant to this District’s policy in immigration cases, the Court identifies
petitioner only by his first name and last initials.
-2-
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 9

noncitizen on an Order of Supervision, ICE’s ability to re‐detain that noncitizen is
constrained by its own regulations.”).
Specifically, ICE has authority to revoke Somvang’s supervised release only on
account of (1) a violation of the conditions of his supervised release, or (2) a
determination by ICE that his removal is significantly likely in the reasonably
foreseeable future due to “changed circumstances.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1)–(2).2 If ICE
attempts to revoke Somvang’s supervised release for one of these reasons, ICE must
follow the procedures set forth in § 241.13(i)(3). In particular, ICE must notify Somvang
of the reasons for revocation and offer him “an initial informal interview promptly after
his . . . return to [ICE] custody to afford [him] an opportunity to respond to the reasons
for revocation stated in the notification.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3).
A. Changed Circumstances
The R&R found that respondents had failed to establish changed circumstances
that make Somvang’s removal to Laos significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable
future.3 At that point, respondents had merely told Judge Bullard that they were trying
2ICE does not argue that Somvang violated a term of his supervised release.
3The Court agrees with Judge Laura Provinzino that, “[a]lthough [petitioner] has
the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to habeas relief, 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, 803 F. Supp. 3d
at 772 (citations omitted).
-3-
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 9

to obtain a travel document from Laos. In respondents’ objection to the R&R—and in
Somvang’s response to that objection—the parties dispute when Laos started accepting
removed individuals for repatriation, how many such individuals Laos has accepted
and is now willing to accept, and whether the fact that respondents were seeking a
travel document for Somvang was a “changed circumstance” providing a basis for
revocation of his supervised release.
At this point, however, the parties’ arguments are largely beside the point, as
Laos has, in fact, issued a travel document for Somvang, and Somvang is scheduled to
be returned to Laos on a charter flight later this month. See ECF No. 20 ¶ 5. The
issuance of a travel document for an alien by his home country is clearly a “changed
circumstance” that gives ICE the ability to revoke the alien’s release under § 241.13(i)(2).
See Moussa S. v. Bondi, No. 26‐CV‐1408 (PJS/ECW), ECF No. 2 at 2 (“[A]lthough receiving
a travel document is a ‘changed circumstance’ justifying revocation of release under
§ 241.13(i)(2), merely seeking a travel document—without more—is not.” (citation
omitted)). Moreover, given that a travel document has been issued and Somvang is
manifested on a flight that is scheduled to depart in the next couple of weeks, there is
undoubtedly a significant likelihood that Somvang will be removed to Laos in the
reasonably foreseeable future.
-4-
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 9

Admittedly, Laos did not issue the travel document until after Somvang’s arrest,
so at the time of his arrest, changed circumstances probably did not exist and ICE
probably did not have authority to revoke his supervised release. But now that the
travel document has been issued, the Court sees little point in ordering ICE to release
Somvang when ICE would have the right to immediately take him back into custody.
Ordering that Somvang be released when he will undoubtedly and lawfully be taken
right back into custody would be an empty formality and a waste of time for all
involved.
B. Notice
Judge Bullard also concluded that ICE violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) by failing to
provide Somvang with adequate notice of the reasons for the revocation of his
supervised release. The Court agrees. Under that regulation, ICE must, “[u]pon
revocation,” notify an alien “of the reasons for revocation of his or her release.” ICE
must also “conduct an initial informal interview” of the alien “promptly after his or her
return to [ICE] custody to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for
revocation stated in the notification.” The Court agrees with Judge Tostrud that,
“[s]imply to say that circumstances had changed or there was a significant likelihood of
removal in the foreseeable future is not enough. Petitioner must be told what
circumstances had changed or why there was now a significant likelihood of removal in
-5-
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 5 of 9

order to meaningfully respond.” Sarail A. v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 775, 787 (D. Minn.
2025).
Somvang received notice the same date as his arrest, so ICE seems to have
complied with § 241.13(i)(3)’s requirement that notice be given “upon revocation.” But
the notice stated merely that “there are changed circumstances in your case” and that
“[d]ue to changes ICE will pursue new efforts to remove you to Laos.” ECF No. 14‐3.
This conclusory description did not satisfy the requirement that Somvang be provided
with a meaningful explanation of why his supervised was being revoked—i.e., of what
circumstances had changed. See, e.g., Kikham S. v. Noem, 26‐CV‐1621 (LMP/ECW), ECF
No. 7 at 5–6 (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2026) (noting that while a travel document “certainly
lends credence” to a likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, it
cannot cure a notice in which “none of that information is even suggested, much less
expressly stated”).
That said, Somvang has subsequently been informed of the circumstances that
changed (Laos issued a travel document for him), and Somvang has been given ample
opportunity to argue that his supervised release should not have been revoked.
Somvang has been represented by skilled lawyers, and those lawyers have worked hard
on his behalf, submitting substantial briefing and a number of exhibits. Under the
circumstances, the Court will deny Somvang’s habeas petition. As the Court has
-6-
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 6 of 9

explained, if the Court ordered that Somvang 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 Somvang 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.
The Court is aware that some judges in this District have held otherwise. E.g.,
Kikham S., No. 26‐CV‐1621, ECF No. 7 (ordering release based on a violation of 8 C.F.R.
§ 241.13(i)(3) after travel document to Laos had been issued). But this case differs in
important respects from some of the other cases in this District in which release was
ordered because of a violation of § 241.13(i)(3). For instance, in Garrison G. v. Bondi, No.
26‐CV‐0172 (JMB/DJF), 2026 WL 157677 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2026), the petitioner received
no notice of any kind of ICE’s reason for revoking his release; here, Somvang knows
very well why ICE revoked his release. And in Faysal N. v. Noem, No. 25‐CV‐4641
(JMB/DLM), 2026 WL 36066 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2026), the respondents submitted no
evidence of a changed circumstance; here, by contrast, respondents have submitted
evidence that Laos has issued a travel document for Somvang, which is undoubtedly a
changed circumstance. See also Tou T. v. Noem, No. 26‐CV‐1670 (PJS/LIB), 2026 WL
712816 (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 719312 (D.
Minn. Mar. 14, 2026) (travel document to Laos issued but no objection filed and notice
-7-
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 7 of 9

of revocation of release issued five days after arrest); Si T.P. v. Noem, No. 26‐CV‐1445
(ECT/DJF), 2026 WL 575705, at *4 (D. Minn. Feb. 24, 2026), report and recommendation
adopted, 2026 WL 593436 (D. Minn. Mar. 2, 2026) (no objection filed and travel document
to Laos requested but not received); Chou T. v. Noem, No. 26‐CV‐1432 (SHL/ECW), 2026
WL 607413 (D. Minn. Feb. 20, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 613575
(D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2026) (travel document to Laos issued but no objection filed and no
steps taken to schedule petitioner’s removal).
No one could accuse this Court of failing to insist that ICE comply with the law.
Moreover, this Court has sympathy for Somvang, given his lack of ties to Laos, the
length of his residency in the United States, the fact that his partner and children are
American citizens, his health issues, and the support he has received from his family,
employer, and community. ECF Nos. 17–19. Ultimately, however, this Court does not
have authority to block Somvang’s removal to Laos, but only to release him from
custody. And as noted, if the Court did release him from custody, Somvang would
enjoy only a moment or two of freedom before being taken right back into custody. In
short, the Court sees no point in releasing Somvang for a couple of seconds so that “ICE
may give [Somvang] notice of changed circumstances that he has already litigated in
this action.” Saengnakhone S., No. 25‐CV‐4774, at *5 n. 5.
-8-
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 8 of 9

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Respondents’ Objection [ECF No. 12] is SUSTAINED.
2. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is REJECTED.
3. 	Petitioner’s amended petition for habeas corpus [ECF No. 8] is DENIED
WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 20, 2026 	/s/ Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-9-
CASE 0:26-cv-00037-PJS-EMB Doc. 21 Filed 03/20/26 Page 9 of 9