Nguyen v. Blanche et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
XUAN NGUYEN, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1355-G
)
PAMELA BONDI, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Xuan Nguyen, a noncitizen1 and Vietnamese national, filed a Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Doc. 1. United States District
Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Respondents timely filed a Response, and
Petitioner timely filed a Reply. 	Docs. 12, 19. 	Because Petitioner is no longer in ICE
custody and this Court can grant no relief to him, the undersigned recommends the Court
dismiss the Petition as moot.
I. 	Background and Petitioner’s Claims
Petitioner, a citizen of Vietnam, entered the United Stated on April 11, 1995, and
was conferred Lawful Permanent Resident status on that date. Pet. at 1; Resp. at 2; Doc.
12-1 at ¶ 4. 	Between August 2015 and April 2018, Petitioner pleaded guilty to multiple
1 Unless directly quoting, this Report and Recommendation “uses the term ‘noncitizen’ as
equivalent to the statutory term ‘alien.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 578 n.2 (2020)
(citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)).
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 9

2
felony drug offenses in Oklahoma state courts and was sentenced to concurrent prison
terms, ultimately resulting in a 15-year term of imprisonment. Resp. at 2-4; Doc. 12-1 at
¶ 4. 	During his imprisonment, on June 3, 2022, Petitioner pleaded guilty to three felony
counts of possession of a contraband cell phone in prison and was sentenced to three two-
year terms of confinement, to run concurrently with the sentence he was already serving.
Resp. at 4.
On April 19, 2023, after serving his prison sentence, Petitioner was placed into
removal proceedings and issued a Notice to Appear. 	Resp. at 4; Doc. 12-1 at ¶ 5. 	On
August 10, 2023, an immigration judge issued an order of removal to Vietnam. Pet. at 1;
Resp. at 4; Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 6. The appeal of Petitioner’s removal order was dismissed, and
the removal order became final on November 22, 2023. Pet. at 1; Resp. at 4; Doc. 12-1 at
¶ 6. 	Petitioner remained in ICE detention for approximately 8 months. 	Pet. at 1-2.
According to Petitioner, on July 19, 2024, he was released on an Order of Supervision
(“OOS”) “pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(e) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 because it was determined
there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Pet.
at 2; see also Resp. at 4 (confirming that Petitioner was released on an OOS on July 19,
2024); Doc. 12-1 at ¶ 9 (same). Petitioner alleges that he had applied for travel documents
to Vietnam multiple times before being released on an OOS in 2024 and that each time
ICE failed to obtain a travel document for Petitioner. Pet. at 2, 12. He further alleges that
he has no Vietnamese birth certificate, valid passport, or other valid proof of Vietnamese
citizenship. Id. at 2.
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 9

3
On September 3, 2025, Petitioner was re-detained by ICE at a scheduled check-in
appointment. Id. at 2, 12; Resp. at 4; Doc. 12-1 at ¶ 9. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that
(1) Respondents violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 by re-detaining him after his release on an OOS
and (2) his re-detention violates his Due Process rights under the Fifth Amendment because
there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Pet.
at 21-22. 	Petitioner seeks immediate release from ICE detention. 	Id. at 24. 	When
Petitioner filed his Petitioner, he was detained at Cimarron Correctional Facility in
Cushing, Oklahoma. Id. at 8.
On December 1, 2025, Respondents filed a Notice informing the Court that
Petitioner was scheduled to be removed to Vietnam on December 14, 2025. Resp. at 4-5;
see also Doc. 11 (Notice of Respondents’ Intent to Remove Petitioner). 	At the time,
Respondents asserted that Petitioner was “scheduled for a chartered removal flight to
Vietnam,” and that ICE Deportation Officer Micheal Thompson believed that “there is a
significant likelihood that [Petitioner] will be removed to Vietnam in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” Resp. at 4-5 (quoting Doc. 12-1 at ¶ 10).
On December 2, 2025, Petitioner filed a response to the Notice, averring that
Respondents “cannot deport Petitioner to Vietnam without a Vietnamese travel document”
and “the only indication in the record that Petitioner will be removed to Vietnam is a
conclusory statement of counsel, and a deportation officer declaration that references a
charter flight without alleging any facts indicating Vietnam is likely to accept Petitioner.”
Doc. 13 at 2 (citation modified). 	The undersigned ordered Respondents to reply to
Petitioner’s response to the Notice, specifically informing the court about (1) Petitioner’s
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 9

4
status with a removal flight or other removal efforts and (2) any travel documents secured
for Petitioner to Vietnam and evidence of Vietnam’s likelihood of accepting Petitioner.
Doc 14 at 1-2.
On December 8, 2025, Respondents filed an 11-page reply, largely unresponsive to
the specific information requested by the undersigned. Doc. 15. However, on the last page
of the reply, Respondents informed the Court that Petitioner “has been taken off the
December 14 flight manifest, but DHS/ICE intends to effect his removal on a later flight.”
Id. at 11. 	Respondents also reiterated that they “still intend to remove Petitioner, but it
appears unlikely that he will be removed in December 2025.” Id. at 11 n.4. The next day,
Respondents filed a Notice informing the Court that Petitioner had been moved to
Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, but that he would be moved back to
Cimarron Correctional Facility. Doc. 16 at 1-2.
Having 	learned 	that 	Petitioner 	had 	not 	been 	transferred 	back 	to 	Cimarron
Correctional Facility, on December 24, 2025, the undersigned directed Respondents to
“confirm Petitioner’s current whereabouts and inform the Court whether Petitioner is
scheduled on any future removal flight” not later than December 31, 2025. 	Doc 21 at 4.
On December 31, 2025, Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner was moved from
Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas back to Cimarron Correctional Facility,
and that “Petitioner is not currently scheduled for a removal flight, but DHS/ICE intends
to re-schedule him for removal.” 	Doc. 22 at 1-2 (citation modified). 	Two days later,
Respondents filed a Supplemental Notice informing the Court that Petitioner would be
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 9

5
transferred to Prairieland Detention Center, then to Alexandria, Louisiana for staging for
removal to Vietnam on January 12, 2026. Doc. 23 at 1-2.
On January 13, 2026, Respondents filed a notice that Petitioner “was removed from
the United States on January 12, 2026, and is no longer in custody.” 	Doc. 25 at 2. 	The
undersigned provided an opportunity for Petitioner’s counsel to respond to the notice of
removal, Doc. 26, and counsel did not respond. 	Further, the undersigned has separately
confirmed that Petitioner’s location in ICE custody no longer appears on ICE’s Online
Detainee Locator System, at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/results (last visited Jan. 21,
2026).
II. 	Standard of Review
To obtain habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show that he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 	28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). “Challenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly through
habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001)).
“Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is
a 	constitutional 	prerequisite 	to 	federal 	court 	jurisdiction.” 	McClendon 	v. 	City 	of
Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996). 	“Because mootness is a matter of
jurisdiction, a court may raise the issue sua sponte.” Id.
III. 	Analysis
Petitioner properly filed his Petition in this district because he was detained here at
the time of filing. Pet. at 3; Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 9

6
a § 2241 petition “must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined”). Petitioner
satisfied the “in custody” requirement under § 2241 “at the time the petition was filed.”
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); see also Riley v. I.N.S., 310 F.3d 1253, 1256 (10th
Cir. 2002) (noting that petitioner met the “in custody” requirement of § 2241 because he
was “in custody at the time of filing” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241)). “The more substantial
question, however, is whether petitioner’s subsequent release caused the petition to be
moot because it no longer presented a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the
Constitution.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to ‘cases’ and
‘controversies.’” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 160 (2016) (quoting U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2). 	“In order to invoke federal-court jurisdiction, a [petitioner] must
demonstrate that he possesses a legally cognizable interest, or personal stake, in the
outcome of the action.” 	Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71 (2013)
(citation modified). 	This means “an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of
review, not merely at time the [petition] is filed.” Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520
U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (citation modified). 	“If an intervening circumstance deprives the
[petitioner] of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, at any point during litigation,
the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” 	Genesis Healthcare
Corp., 569 U.S. at 72 (citation modified). 	“A case becomes moot only when it is
impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox
v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (citation modified).
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Here, Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody and has been removed to his home
country of Vietnam. Though jurisdiction attached in this district when Petitioner filed his
Petition here, his subsequent release from ICE custody and removal from the United States
may render his Petition moot. 	The Petition does not become moot, however, merely
because Petitioner has been removed from the country. If a petitioner “has been released
from custody while his or her habeas petition is pending, a court’s jurisdiction depends
upon the existence of ‘collateral consequences . . . adequate to meet Article III’s injury-in-
fact requirement.’” 	King v. Ciolli, No. 23-1201, 2024 WL 1179908, at *2 (10th Cir.
Mar. 19, 2024) (quoting Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14). 	To overcome mootness after release
from custody, a petitioner must show “some concrete and continuing injury” “if the suit is
to be maintained.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.
Petitioner challenges his detention, and not his underlying removal order. See Pet.
at 1. 	Courts have concluded that a petitioner’s release from immigration custody moots
his habeas challenge to the legality of his detention, where the only possible “continuing
injury” or collateral consequence “stems from his removal order, not his detention.” 	Ferry
v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1132 (10th Cir. 2006). Further, any determination now as to
whether Petitioner’s detention violated his due process rights would amount to an advisory
opinion that this Court cannot issue. Id. (declining “to issue an advisory opinion regarding
[petitioner’s] entitlement to a bond hearing because a declaratory judgment on that question
would have no meaningful effect on the [immigration officials’] future conduct” with
petitioner).
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 7 of 9

8
Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody, and the relief he requests is no longer
available and cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. The undersigned is not
aware from the record of any collateral consequences to Petitioner that would constitute an
exception to the mootness doctrine. As such, Petitioner’s habeas challenge to his detention
no longer presents a case or controversy subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, and the Petition
should be dismissed as moot. See, e.g., Sule v. I.N.S., 189 F.3d 478, 1999 WL 668716, at
*1 	(10th 	Cir. 	1999) 	(unpublished 	table 	decision) 	(concluding 	that 	an 	immigration
detainee’s “release [from immigration custody through deportation] has mooted his
challenge to the legality of his detention”); Mounivong v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1483-PRW,
Doc. 15 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2025) (recommending dismissal of habeas petition as moot
when petitioner was removed to home country and no longer in ICE custody) (R&R),
adopted, Doc. 16 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 8, 2026); Souphanthong v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1220-D,
Doc. 16 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2025) (same) (R&R), adopted, Doc. 20 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16,
2025); McLean v. Bondi, No. CIV-25-1165-PRW, Doc. 11 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2025)
(same) (R&R), adopted, Doc. 18 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 14, 2025); see also Diaz Garcia v.
Grant, No. CIV-25-1239-D, Doc. 15 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 2025) (recommending dismissal
of habeas petition as moot when Cuban national petitioner was removed to third country
of Mexico and was no longer in ICE custody) (R&R), adopted, Doc. 18 (W.D. Okla. Jan.
14, 2026); Bolom Vazquez v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1191-J, Doc. 12 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 6, 2025)
(recommending dismissal of habeas petition as moot when petitioner’s request for
cancellation of removal was granted and he was released from ICE custody) (R&R),
adopted, Doc. 13 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 21, 2025).
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 8 of 9

9
IV. 	Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
Petitioner’s release from ICE custody and removal to Vietnam render his Petition
moot, as there is no longer an actual case or controversy for the Court to decide. 	The
undersigned therefore recommends that the Court DISMISS the Petition, Doc. 1, as moot.
The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See 28
U.S.C. § 636. 	Any objection must be filed not later than February 4, 2026. 	See id.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate
review of the factual and legal issues addressed in this Report and Recommendation. See
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 21 st day of January, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01355-G Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 Page 9 of 9