1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 OUNONG SAYSANAVONG, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3624-CAB-DEB

14 Petitioner, ORDER: 15 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 16 KRISTI NOEM, et al., No. 1]; 17 Respondents. (2) GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 18 REPLY [Doc. No. 9]; AND 19 (3) DENYING MOTION FOR 20 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 21 ORDER [Doc. No. 2]. 22 Pending before the Court is Ounong Saysanavong’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ 23 of Habeas Corpus, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 24 25 26 27 28 1 [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Respondents filed a response, [Doc. No. 8], and Petitioner filed a 2 Reply, [Doc. No. 9].1 For the following reasons, the Petition and the TRO are DENIED. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 Petitioner is a native of Laos who came to the United States in 1981. [Petition at 3.] 5 Petitioner’s status was later adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident. [Id.] On 6 September 22, 2008, Petitioner was ordered removed because he was convicted in 2003 of 7 a drug crime. [Id. at 5–6.] After detaining him for several months, Immigration and 8 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) released Petitioner on an order of supervision because 9 “Laos did not issue [him] travel documents.” [Id. at 6; see also Doc. No. 8 at 2.] 10 On November 12, 2025, Petitioner was re-detained to effect his removal to Laos. 11 [Doc. No. 8 at 3.] Respondents have now obtained “a travel document from the Embassy 12 of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, dated December 8, 2025, authorizing 13 Petitioner’s removal to Laos for a 90-day period from the date of issuance, that is, by March 14 8, 2026.” [Id.] Further, Respondents anticipate finding and booking a removal flight such 15 that Petitioner’s “removal will occur in January 2026.” [Id.] 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 18 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,

(2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 19 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of 20 that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 21 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). Under

, a 22 district court has the authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in 23 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 24 § 2241(c)(3). The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in 25 26 27 1 The Court’s scheduling order did not initially provide for a reply given the facts presented in the Petition. [Doc. No. 4.] However, given Respondents’ assertions regarding the issuance of a travel 28 1 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2241(c)(3). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 A. Jurisdiction 5 Respondents argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner’s 6 claims under

because the claims arise from or seek to enjoin the decision 7 to execute Petitioner’s removal order. [Doc. No. 8 at 5.] The Supreme Court’s holding in 8 Zadvydas squarely contradicts this argument with respect to Petitioner’s claims over the 9 length of his post-removal-period detention. Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001). 10 There, the Supreme Court rejected the application of § 1252 to limit judicial review of 11 indefinite post-removal-period detentions under § 1231(a)(6) and held “that § 2241 habeas 12 corpus proceedings remain available as a forum for statutory and constitutional challenges 13 to post-removal-period detention.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687–88. This Court is thus 14 satisfied of its subject matter jurisdiction and proceeds to the merits. 15 B. Lawfulness of Petitioner’s Continued Detention Under

16 Petitioner asserts that his detention is unlawful under

(a) and the 17 Supreme Court’s Zadvydas decision. [Petition at 15–19.] Respondents argue that even 18 assuming Petitioner has been detained for more than six months after his final order of 19 removal, he has not shown there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably 20 foreseeable future, as required under Zadvydas. [Doc. No. 8 at 7.] 21 The Court agrees with Respondents. Respondents have secured a travel document 22 for Petitioner’s removal to Laos, which they anticipate occurring in January 2026. 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s (1) application for a writ of 25 habeas corpus and (2) motion for temporary restraining order. The Court accordingly 26 RESCINDS its prior order enjoining Petitioner’s removal from the Southern District of 27 California, [Doc. No. 4], so that Respondents may effect Petitioner’s removal to Laos. 28 | || Finally, the parties are ORDERED to provide a joint status update by January 26, 2026 2 || regarding the status of Petitioner’s removal. 3 Itis SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: December 29, 2025 (ib 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28