Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
YENG XIONG,
Petitioner,
vs.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security, et
al.,
Respondents.
0:26-CV-1399
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petitioner is a noncitizen currently detained by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Filing 1. He asserts his detention is unlawful because the government
revoked his order of supervision without regard for his due process rights. The
Court will grant the petition.1
The facts in this case are largely similar to Vang v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-
1381 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2026). The petitioner is a noncitizen with an
1 A petitioner seeking release from immigration detention shall be awarded costs and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d), unless the Court finds that the government's position was substantially justified or
that special circumstances make an award unjust. See Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley
Corr. Ctr., No. 24-2990, 2026 WL 263483 (3d Cir. Feb. 2, 2026); see also, e.g., Yeferson G.C. v.
Easterwood, No. 25-CV-4814, 2026 WL 207266, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 21), report and
recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 209825 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2026); Mairena-Munguia v.
Arnott, No. 25-CV-3318, 2025 WL 3229132, at *5 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2025); cf. Bah v.
Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2008) (evaluating the merits of immigration habeas
petitioner's EAJA claim). Any motion for costs and fees pursuant to the EAJA in this case
should be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment. See § 2412(d)(1)(B).
CASE 0:26-cv-01399-JMG-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 3

2
unexecuted final order of removal from June 2005, but he was released from
detention in September 2005 subject to an order of supervision.
The order of supervision conferred due process rights that are enshrined
in a regulatory scheme with which the government hasn't complied. See Vang,
No. 26-CV-1381. In particular, the regulations require that, after notice of a
revocation of an order of supervision, a noncitizen is entitled to a prompt
"initial informal interview," and must have an "opportunity to respond to the
reasons for revocation stated in the notification." § 241.13(i)(3).
The government doesn't deny the petitioner's allegations that he was
detained without a prior notice of revocation. Filing 1 at 8. The government
purports it had the requisite interview with the petitioner on November 11,
2025. Filing 5-2 at 3; filing 5 at 2. But the Notice of Revocation of Release is
dated December 11, 2025. See filing 5-2 at 1. And the travel documents
demonstrating a "change in circumstance" didn't materialize until weeks after
the petitioner was detained. See filing 5-3 at 1.
Even assuming the November 11 date is a mistake, the government has
not shown that it complied with the bare-minimum procedural requirements
of § 241.13. For the reasons explained by the Court in Vang, the Court finds
that the petitioner's continued detention is unlawful. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1) is granted.
2. The government shall, if necessary, immediately return the
petitioner to the District of Minnesota.
CASE 0:26-cv-01399-JMG-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. When the petitioner is in Minnesota, the government shall
immediately release the petitioner subject to and in
accordance with the conditions in his preexisting Order of
Supervision (filing 5-4), and shall return any personal
property seized from the petitioner when detained.
4. No later than February 20, 2026, the government shall file
a status report certifying compliance with this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
Dated this 18th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01399-JMG-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 3