Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-1356-RSH-MMP
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PHET SAENGPRASEUTH,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1356-RSH-MMP
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 2]
On March 3, 2026, petitioner Phet Saengpraseuth filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) and thereafter filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Respondents have filed a return. ECF
No. 5.
Petitioner, a citizen of Laos, was ordered removed to Laos on March 10, 2009. ECF
No. 5 at 2. On July 6, 2009, Petitioner was released from immigration custody under an
Order of Supervision because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) was
unable to obtain a travel document for his return. Id. On January 13, 2026, ICE re-detained
Petitioner for purposes of effectuating the order of removal. Id. Petitioner is in immigration
custody at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, California. ECF No. 1 at
Case 3:26-cv-01356-RSH-MMP Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-1356-RSH-MMP
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
4.
Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his continued detention. Petitioner argues:
(1) Respondents re-arrested Petitioner in violation of its own regulations, including 8
C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i); (2) Petitioner’s detention is unlawful under Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), because there is no significant likelihood of Petitioner’s
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future; and (3) ICE should be prohibited from
removing Petitioner to a third country without adequate notice and an opportunity to be
heard. ECF No. 1 at 7-18.
Respondents state that ICE does not seek to remove Petitioner to a country other
than Laos; that ICE has been working diligently to secure Petitioner’s removal, and indeed
has now secured a travel document for Petitioner’s return to Laos; and that ICE intends to
execute Petitioner’s order of removal prior to April 1, 2026. ECF No. 5 at 2. Respondents
have not, however, addressed Petitioner’s first claim for relief—that his rearrest was
unlawful under applicable federal regulations.
The detention and release of noncitizens who are subject to a final order of removal
is addressed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Under that statute, “when an alien is ordered removed,
the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90
days.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). “If the alien does not leave or is not removed within the
removal period, the alien, pending removal, shall be subject to supervision under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). Federal regulations
prescribe the manner in which such supervision may be revoked. Petitioner contends that
the regulations applicable here require that “[u]pon revocation” of release, “the alien will
be notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release [],” and also provide that DHS
“will conduct an initial informal interview promptly after his or her return to … custody to
afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the
notification.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). Petitioner further contends
that Respondents failed to comply with either the notification requirement or the informal
interview requirement. ECF No. 1 at 9. Neither Respondents’ return, nor the declaration
Case 3:26-cv-01356-RSH-MMP Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-1356-RSH-MMP
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
they 	submit, 	respond 	to 	this 	argument 	or 	otherwise 	provide 	facts 	reflecting 	that
Respondents complied with these regulations. Nor have Respondents argued that such
compliance is immaterial to the relief Petitioner seeks.
Government agencies are required to follow their own regulations. United States ex
rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 (1954); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 852 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts have determined that where DHS fails
to follow its own regulations in revoking release, the detention is unlawful and the
petitioner’s release must be ordered. See, e.g., Orellana v. Baker, No. 25-1788-TDC, 2025
WL 2444087, at *8 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2025); M.S.L. v. Bostock, No. 6:25-cv-1204-AA,
2025 WL 2430267, at *10 (D. Or. Aug. 21, 2025); Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer, 781 F. Supp. 3d
137, 165-66 (W.D.N.Y. 2025); Rombot v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388 (D. Mass.
2017). This Court, treating Petitioner’s first claim as uncontested, reaches the same
conclusion here.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED as follows. Respondents are ordered to
release petitioner Phet Saengpraseuth from custody no later than Tuesday, March 17,
2026, subject to his preexisting conditions of release on supervision, or such other
conditions of release on recognizance that may be appropriate. The Court declines to issue
further declaratory or injunctive relief.
In light of the foregoing disposition, Petitioner’s application for a temporary
restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.
The hearing set for March 26, 2026 is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-01356-RSH-MMP Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3