Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Mohammad A.,1
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Administrator Sherburne
County Jail, and ICE Field Office
Director,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-1585 (JRT/JFD)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Mohammad A.’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal
issued in 2002. He was placed in immigration detention in 2011 but was released in 2012
under an order of supervision. On December 11, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) re-detained Petitioner pursuant to a warrant. Petitioner is currently
detained at the Sherburne County Jail. He argues that his detention is unlawful and asks for
immediate release. Respondents oppose the petition. As set forth below, the Court finds
that ICE did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) in revoking Petitioner’s release and
therefore recommends that the petition be granted.
1 This District has adopted a policy of using only the first name and last initial of any
nongovernmental parties in immigration cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-01585-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 7

2
I. 	Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Afghanistan, who entered the United States as a refugee in
1982. (Patrin Decl. ¶¶ 4–5, Dkt. No. 5.) He was ordered removed from the United States
on September 30, 2002, after being convicted of an aggravated felony. (Id. ¶¶ 8–9.) ICE
detained Petitioner in 2011 upon his release from the Georgia Department of Corrections.
(Id. ¶ 12.) On March 21, 2012, Petitioner was released from ICE custody under an order of
supervision. (Id. ¶ 15.)
As part of Operation Metro Surge, an ICE officer arrested Petitioner on December
11, 2025. (Id. ¶ 17 & Ex. C.) Deportation Officer B. Davis attempted an informal interview
on December 12, 2025, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 241.4(l) and § 241.13(i), ostensibly to allow
Petitioner “an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation of his . . . order of
supervision stated in the notification letter.” (Patrin Decl. Ex. D.) A Notice of Revocation
of Release (“Notice”) dated December 16, 2025—which was five days after Petitioner’s
arrest and four days after the interview—notified Petitioner that his order of supervision
had been revoked. (Patrin Decl. Ex. E.) The Notice stated that “ICE has determined that
there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future in your
case,” that Petitioner “had not been compliant with the terms of [his] release,” and “due to
changes in circumstances, ICE will pursue new efforts to remove [him] to Afghanistan.”
(Patrin Decl. Ex. E.) The Notice did not say what circumstances had changed or how
Petitioner had not complied with the terms of his release.
ICE submitted a Travel Letter Request to the Afghanistan Embassy on January 26,
2026. (Patrin Decl. ¶ 12.) As of February 25, 2026, the request remained pending. (Patrin
CASE 0:26-cv-01585-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Decl. ¶ 22.) Deportation Officer Patrin’s declaration did not say whether Afghanistan is
cooperating with ICE to issue travel documents.
Petitioner filed his habeas petition on February 23, 2026. He raises four grounds for
relief: (1) he has protected asylum status; (2) he is missing chemotherapy appointments for
cancer treatment; (3) he is being held in detention unlawfully, especially considering that
ICE has been unsuccessful in previous efforts to deport him, and he has no known or
obtainable records from Afghanistan; and (4) he has fully complied with release conditions.
(Pet. at 6–7.) Petitioner asks for immediate release. Respondents ask the Court to deny the
petition because Petitioner has not yet been in custody for six months, and his detention is
presumptively reasonable. Respondents also contend that Petitioner’s release was properly
revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). (Fed. Resp’ts’ Resp. at 7, Dkt. No. 4.)
II. 	Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, federal courts have jurisdiction to order the release of
a person held in the custody of the United States in violation of the “Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). This authority includes the release
of detained noncitizens when ICE fails to follow its own regulations. Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer,
781 F. Supp. 3d 137, 165–66 (W.D.N.Y. May 2, 2025) (finding that ICE failed to comply
with 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 and granting the detainee’s § 2241 habeas petition); see Rombot v.
Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 387 (D. Mass. 2017) (finding that ICE failed to comply with
8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13 and 241.4 and ordering the detainee’s release). “An agency must . . .
follow its own regulations.” Mohammed H. v. Trump, No. 25-CV-1576 (JWB/DTS), 2025
CASE 0:26-cv-01585-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 7

4
WL 1334847, at *6 (D. Minn. May 5, 2025) (citing United States ex rel. Accardi v.
Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265 (1954); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 602 n.7 (1988)).
Title 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 governs ICE’s determination of whether there is a significant
likelihood of removing an individual from the United States in the reasonably foreseeable
future. The regulation includes procedures for releasing an individual under conditions and
also procedures for 	revoking that release. 	8 C.F.R. § 241.13(h)–(i). Subsection 	(i)
authorizes revocations of release in two circumstances: (1) if the individual violates his
release conditions or (2) “if, on account of changed circumstances, the Service determines
that there is a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed in the reasonably
foreseeable future” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1), (2). The procedures applicable to the two types
of revocation are the same. Of particular relevance here, the individual “will be notified of
the reasons for revocation”; ICE must promptly conduct an initial informal interview to
allow the individual “to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification”;
the individual may submit supporting evidence and information to rebut the reasons for
revocation; and ICE must evaluate contested facts and determine whether the facts warrant
revocation of release. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3).2
2 Although Petitioner did not refer specifically to 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) in his petition, he
alleged that he is being detained unlawfully, that ICE has been unsuccessful in its efforts
to deport him in the past, that he has no known or obtainable records from Afghanistan,
and that he complied fully with his release conditions. Granting the petition a liberal
construction, these assertions imply that ICE wrongfully revoked his release, that no
circumstances changed, that there is not a significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future, and that Petitioner did not violate a condition of release. See
8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1)–(2). Moreover, Respondents clearly understood Petitioner to have
raised this argument, given their discussion of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) in response to the
petition. (Resp’ts’ Resp. at 6–7.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01585-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 7

5
In this case, the Notice informed Petitioner that “changed circumstances” led ICE
to determine there was “a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future”—but the Notice did not inform Petitioner what the changed circumstances were.
The 	Notice 	simply 	mirrored 	the 	language 	of 	§ 	241.13(i)(2). 	Simply 	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 order to meaningfully respond
to the reasons and submit evidence in opposition, as allowed under § 241.13(i)(3). See
Sarail A. v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 775, 780, 787 (D. Minn. 2025). In other words, ICE
must provide the specific facts that created a change in circumstances. Id. at 783.
Similarly, the Notice informed Petitioner that he had “not been compliant with the
terms of [his] release,” but it did not describe the supposed noncompliance or provide
specific supporting facts. ICE must notify a noncitizen of the reasons for revoking release,
whether the revocation is due to changed circumstances or a violation of conditions. See 8
C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3).
Finally, even if the Notice had informed Petitioner what circumstances had changed,
why there was now a significant likelihood of removal, or how he had not complied with
the terms of his release, the Notice was dated (and presumably issued) five days after his
arrest and four days after his interview. Therefore, the Notice could not have notified
Petitioner of the reasons for revocation in time for him to respond to the reasons and submit
evidence in opposition at the informal interview.
CASE 0:26-cv-01585-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 7

6
In light of the foregoing, the Court recommends that the petition for writ of habeas
corpus be granted and that Petitioner be released subject to the conditions in his previous
order of supervision. See Sarail A., 803 F. Supp. 3d at 785. The parties’ attention is directed
to the shorter than usual deadlines for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation
and for filing responses to those objections, set forth in the “Notice” below.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Petitioner Mohammad A.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) be
GRANTED in that Petitioner be released from custody, subject to the conditions
in his prior order of supervision;
2. Respondents be ordered to immediately release Petitioner Mohammad A. from
custody; and
3. Respondents be ordered to file a notice confirming such release within 24 hours of
the date of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation.
Dated: March 2, 2026 	s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Under D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1), “[a] party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, unless the court sets a
CASE 0:26-cv-01585-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 7

7
different deadline.” (Emphasis added.) The Court modifies the deadline such that
objections are due on or before March 4, 2026. Responses to objections are due on or
before March 5, 2026. All objections and responses must comply with the word or line
limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-01585-JRT-JFD Doc. 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 7 of 7