Mohammad A. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Procedural Posture

This is a Report and Recommendation — a non-final document issued by a magistrate judge — recommending how the district judge should rule on Mohammad A.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order requiring the government to justify why it is holding a person in custody. Because this is a recommendation and not a final order, it is not directly appealable; the parties must first file objections with the district court by March 4, 2026, with responses due by March 5, 2026.

Background

Mohammad A. is a citizen of Afghanistan who entered the United States as a refugee in 1982. He was ordered removed from the United States on September 30, 2002, following a conviction for an aggravated felony. ICE detained him in 2011 after his release from the Georgia Department of Corrections, but released him on March 21, 2012, under an order of supervision — a conditional release requiring compliance with certain terms.

As part of an operation called "Operation Metro Surge," ICE arrested Mohammad A. on December 11, 2025. An ICE officer attempted an informal interview on December 12, 2025. A formal Notice of Revocation of Release was then issued on December 16, 2025 — five days after the arrest and four days after the interview. The Notice stated that ICE had determined there was a "significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future," that Mohammad A. had not complied with the terms of his release, and that changed circumstances prompted new removal efforts to Afghanistan. However, the Notice did not identify what the changed circumstances were, did not explain why removal was now likely, and did not describe the alleged noncompliance with release conditions.

As of February 25, 2026, ICE's Travel Letter Request to the Afghanistan Embassy (submitted January 26, 2026) remained pending, and the government's declaration did not indicate whether Afghanistan was cooperating with document issuance.

Mohammad A. filed his habeas petition on February 23, 2026, raising four grounds: (1) he has protected asylum status; (2) he is missing chemotherapy appointments for cancer treatment; (3) his detention is unlawful given ICE's past inability to deport him and the lack of obtainable Afghan records; and (4) he fully complied with his release conditions. Respondents opposed the petition, arguing his detention is presumptively reasonable because he had not yet been held for six months, and that the revocation of release was proper under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).

Applicable Legal Framework

Jurisdiction

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), federal courts have authority to order release of a person held in U.S. custody in violation of federal law. Courts have applied this to immigration detainees when ICE fails to follow its own regulations. The court cites the principle, rooted in Supreme Court precedent (United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954)), that an agency must follow its own rules.

8 C.F.R. § 241.13 — Revocation of Supervised Release

This regulation governs ICE's authority to revoke a person's supervised release. Revocation is permitted in two situations: (1) the person violated release conditions, or (2) changed circumstances create a significant likelihood that the person may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1)–(2).

Regardless of which ground applies, the regulation requires the same procedural protections under § 241.13(i)(3): - The person must be notified of the specific reasons for revocation; - ICE must promptly conduct an initial informal interview allowing the person to respond to those reasons; - The person may submit evidence and information to rebut the reasons; and - ICE must evaluate contested facts and determine whether they warrant revocation.

Analysis and Holding

The court found three independent procedural failures by ICE:

First, the Notice invoked "changed circumstances" and "significant likelihood of removal" but did not identify what circumstances had changed or why removal was now likely. The court held that simply echoing regulatory language is not enough; ICE must provide the specific facts creating the change in circumstances, so the detainee can meaningfully respond and submit rebuttal evidence. The court cited a prior case in this district, Sarail A. v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 775 (D. Minn. 2025), in support.

Second, the Notice stated that Mohammad A. had not complied with release conditions, but provided no description of the alleged noncompliance and no supporting facts. The court held that the regulation requires specific notice of the reasons for revocation whether the basis is a condition violation or changed circumstances.

Third, even setting aside the content deficiencies, the Notice was issued five days after the arrest and four days after the interview. This sequencing meant the Notice could not have served its regulatory purpose — it came too late for Mohammad A. to use it to prepare his response and gather supporting evidence for the interview.

Based on these three failures, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends granting the petition.

Recommended Relief

Note: This is a Report and Recommendation only. It must be reviewed and adopted (or rejected) by a district judge before it becomes a binding order.