1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHI NGUYEN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03077-RBM-BJW

10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING HABEAS 11 v. PETITION

12 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department [Doc. 1] of Homeland Security, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Chi Nguyen’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ 17 of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to

(Doc. 1) and Motion and 18 Memorandum of Law in Support of Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. 19 1-4.) Petitioner claims his detention by United States Immigration and Customs 20 Enforcement (“ICE”) violates the regulations set forth in

(l) and 21 § 241.13(i), the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001), and 22 the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 1 at 3, 10–20.)1 23 In their Response, Respondents argue that: (1) Petitioner’s claims are jurisdictionally 24 barred under

(g); (2) Petitioner’s ongoing detention falls within the six- 25 month presumptively reasonable detention period under Zadvydas; and (3) even if ICE 26 27 28 1 1 failed to comply with the regulatory requirements, Petitioner cannot show prejudice from 2 such violations. (Doc. 6 at 4–17.) 3 The Court recently granted several habeas petitions filed by similarly situated 4 petitioners. In Phan and Thai, the Court determined that ICE failed to follow its own 5 regulations in revoking the petitioners’ release thereby rendering their detentions unlawful 6 because: (1) the petitioners did not receive adequate notice of the reasons for their 7 revocation of release; (2) ICE failed to conduct the required interview when it had over a 8 month to do so; and (3) the Government failed to establish any “changed circumstances” 9 showing a significant likelihood of removal for refugees of Vietnam who entered the 10 United States before 1995 “[b]ecause Vietnam refused to accept for repatriation [such] 11 Vietnamese nationals [and] ICE tried and failed to secure travel documents for [their] 12 deportation to Vietnam.” Phan v. Noem, Case No. 3:25-cv-02422-RBM-MSB,

2898977, at *4–5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025); Thai v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02436-RBM- 14 MMP (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025), ECF No. 10 at 6–9.2 15 While Respondents claim ICE has removed 324 pre-1995 Vietnam refugees in the 16 past fiscal year, this alone does not make Petitioner’s removal reasonably foreseeable. See 17 Thai, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02436-RBM-MMP, ECF No. 10 at 8–9; accord Phan v. Beccerra, 18 No. 2:25-CV-01757-DC-JDP,

, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025) (rejecting 19 contention that removal is reasonably foreseeable “because removals to Vietnam are in fact 20 occurring” where “[p]re-1995 Vietnamese immigrants may be repatriated to Vietnam on 21 ‘a case-by-case basis’” and Vietnam has “discretion whether to issue a travel document to 22 any individual.”) (quoting Hoi Thanh Duong v. Tate, No. 24-cv-04119-H,

933947, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2025)); Vu v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01366-KES-SKO 24 (HC),

, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2025) (“[T]he 2020 MOU does not 25 mandate that Vietnam accept all eligible pre-1995 Vietnamese refugees with orders of 26 27 28 2 1 removal; it... does not give rise to any rights or obligations under domestic or international 2 ||law; it does not create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits on any individual.’’) 3 || (quoting Neuyen v. Hyde,

, 151 (D. Mass. 2025)) (cleaned up). 4 Additionally, the Court has rejected similar arguments concerning prejudice and 5 || found that “ICE deprived [a petitioner] of his due process rights and prejudiced his interests 6 ||by failing to afford him the procedural safeguards the regulations were designed to 7 || protect.” Ghafouri v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-02675-RBM-BLM,

, at *6 8 ||(S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025); see Rasakhamdee v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-028 16-RBM-DEB,

, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2025) (finding a similarly situated petitioner 10 ||} was “prejudiced by ICE’s failure to comply with its own regulations” where he was 11 ||deprived of “due process protections when [ICE] failed to provide him with sufficient 12 ||notice or a prompt interview to respond to the reasons for revocation of his release.’’). 13 ||Respondents’ argument that Petitioner was not prejudiced by ICE’s regulatory violations 14 therefore unavailing. 15 The Court has also consistently rejected Respondents’ argument that similarly 16 || situated petitioners’ claims are jurisdictionally barred under

(g). See Phan,

, at *2; Ghafouri,

, at *3; Rasakhamdee,

3102037, at *2. 19 For those same reasons, the Court finds Petitioner’s detention is unlawful and the 20 || Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly: 21 1. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, 22 subject to his preexisting Order of Supervision. 23 2. The TRO Motion (Doc. 1-4) is DENIED AS MOOT. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATE: November 21, 2025 Reeder 7 ON. RUTH BERM@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28