Faysal N. v. Noem
Faysal N. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Peter Berg, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; and Eric Tollefson, Kandiyohi County Sheriff, in his official capacity
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-04641
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Faysal N. v. Noem, Judge Bryan ordered immediate release because ICE unlawfully revoked supervision without showing required changed circumstances, while denying transfer request.
Faysal N. was ordered released from immigration detention under the conditions of his existing Order of Supervision; the respondents were required to carry out and confirm that release.
What happened
Faysal N. v. Noem concerned the detention of Faysal N., who had been released under ICE supervision in 2011 after an immigration judge ordered his removal to Somalia but granted protection from removal there. ICE detained him again in December 2025 and revoked his supervised release, saying circumstances had changed and removal was now likely soon.
The court ruled that regulations required ICE to identify the changed circumstances and explain why removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The revocation notice and the government’s court filings did not provide enough specific information, and the record did not show that Faysal N. had violated his supervision conditions.
Judge Bryan granted the habeas petition in part and denied it in part. He ordered Faysal N.’s immediate release under the existing supervision conditions, denied the request to prohibit transfer from the district, and did not decide Faysal N.’s alternative claims under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Constitution.
The detailed version
- Faysal N. v. Noem · No. 0:25-cv-04641
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Jan. 6, 2026
Background
Faysal N. is identified in the opinion as a citizen of Somalia who entered the United States in 2009. In 2010, an immigration judge ordered him removed from the United States but granted withholding of removal to Somalia. After the case was reopened, a second immigration judge issued another removal order and again granted withholding of removal to Somalia on March 3, 2011.
ICE released Faysal N. from custody on March 4, 2011, under an Order of Supervision. The order required monthly reporting to ICE, assistance in obtaining travel documents, and compliance with other conditions. Faysal N. asserted that he complied with the conditions, and the respondents identified no evidence that he had violated them or committed a new crime.
On December 15, 2025, Homeland Security Investigations encountered Faysal N. and detained him. ICE revoked his supervised release that day. Its notice stated that changed circumstances made removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, but it did not identify the changed circumstances or explain the basis for that conclusion. After being moved from the Fort Snelling facility, Faysal N. was detained at the Kandiyohi County Jail.
Faysal N. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which allows a person to challenge custody that violates federal law or the Constitution. He asked the court to declare his detention unlawful and order his release. He also requested a temporary order preventing the respondents from transferring him outside the district without court approval.
Temporary-transfer request
The court had previously given Faysal N. a deadline to file a separate motion seeking temporary relief. He did not file that motion. The court therefore denied the request for a temporary order prohibiting transfer from the district.
Why the court ordered release
The parties disputed whether 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 or § 241.13 governed ICE’s decision to detain Faysal N. again. Section 241.13 applies when ICE previously determined that a person was not significantly likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future and later seeks to revoke that person’s release based on changed circumstances.
The court concluded that section 241.13 applied. It relied on the 2011 Order of Supervision’s statement that ICE had not completed Faysal N.’s removal during the period prescribed by law, the respondents’ position in another case that similar language reflected a determination that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and the respondents’ own 2025 notice referring to “changed circumstances.”
Under section 241.13(i)(2), ICE could revoke release based on changed circumstances only if it determined that the person was significantly likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. The regulations also required notice of the reasons for revocation and an opportunity for the detained person to respond.
The court found that the respondents had not met their burden. The revocation notice merely stated that changed circumstances existed and that removal was now significantly likely, without providing factual details or explaining what determination had been made, by whom, or on what basis. The respondents’ court filings likewise provided only a general statement that ICE was working with the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security on logistics for removal to a third country.
The filings did not identify the country or countries involved, describe the steps taken, state when those steps occurred, or explain the progress of the effort. They also did not show that ICE had made a reasoned determination after considering factors relevant to future removal, such as Faysal N.’s compliance history, ICE’s experience removing people to possible third countries, the likely results of those efforts, or the Department of State’s views.
The court also rejected suggestions that Faysal N. had covertly violated his supervision conditions. The record did not show that he missed a check-in or failed to submit required documentation, and the revocation notice did not cite a violation.
Disposition
The court held that ICE’s December 15, 2025 re-detention of Faysal N. violated the agency’s own regulations. It granted the amended habeas petition in part and denied it in part. The respondents were ordered to release Faysal N. immediately, subject to the conditions in his March 4, 2011 Order of Supervision, and to provide a declaration confirming his release by 11:00 a.m. Central Time on January 9, 2026.
The court did not reach Faysal N.’s alternative claims under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Fifth Amendment’s due-process clause because the regulatory violation independently made his detention unlawful. The order also stated that Faysal N. could separately seek attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act within 30 days of final judgment.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.