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

Procedural Posture

This is a Report and Recommendation (a magistrate judge's proposed ruling, subject to approval by the assigned district judge) on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A § 2241 habeas petition is the mechanism by which a person in federal custody challenges the legality of that custody. The petition was filed on February 23, 2026. Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the petition be granted.

Background Facts

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 upon his release from the Georgia Department of Corrections. On March 21, 2012, ICE released him under an order of supervision — a conditional release arrangement requiring him to comply with specified conditions.

On December 11, 2025, as part of an operation called 'Operation Metro Surge,' an ICE officer re-arrested Mohammad A. On December 12, 2025, a deportation officer attempted an informal interview, purportedly to give Mohammad A. a chance to respond to the reasons for revoking his order of supervision. A written Notice of Revocation of Release, dated December 16, 2025, was issued five days after his 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 terms of his release, and that 'changed circumstances' led ICE to pursue new removal efforts — but the Notice did not specify what those circumstances were or describe any specific noncompliance.

ICE submitted a Travel Letter Request to the Afghanistan Embassy on January 26, 2026. As of February 25, 2026, that request remained pending. The declaration submitted by the deportation officer did not address whether Afghanistan is cooperating with ICE to issue travel documents.

Petitioner's Claims

Mohammad A. raised four grounds for release: (1) he has protected asylum status; (2) he is missing chemotherapy appointments for cancer treatment; (3) his detention is unlawful, particularly given ICE's prior unsuccessful attempts to deport him and the absence of obtainable records from Afghanistan; and (4) he fully complied with his release conditions.

Respondents' Position

The government argued the petition should be denied because Mohammad A. had not yet been in custody for six months — making his detention presumptively reasonable under existing legal standards — and that his release was properly revoked under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).

Legal Framework

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), federal courts may order the release of a person held in U.S. custody in violation of federal law — including when ICE fails to follow its own regulations. The principle that agencies must follow their own regulations is well established. See United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265 (1954).

Title 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 governs ICE's process for determining whether a noncitizen subject to a final order of removal can be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Subsection (i) permits revocation of supervised release in two situations: (1) the individual violated release conditions, or (2) changed circumstances create a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Under § 241.13(i)(3), the procedures for both types of revocation require that: the individual be notified of the specific reasons for revocation; ICE promptly conduct an initial informal interview so the individual can respond to those stated reasons; the individual may submit supporting evidence; and ICE must evaluate contested facts and determine whether they warrant revocation.

Analysis

Inadequate Notice of Changed Circumstances

The court found that the Notice simply mirrored the regulatory language — saying 'circumstances had changed' and there was a 'significant likelihood of removal' — without identifying what circumstances had actually changed or why removal had become more likely. The court held this is insufficient. To meaningfully exercise the right to respond and submit evidence, the noncitizen must be told the specific facts underlying the change in circumstances. Sarail A. v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 775, 783 (D. Minn. 2025).

Inadequate Notice of Alleged Noncompliance

Similarly, the Notice stated that Mohammad A. had 'not been compliant' with his release conditions but provided no description of the alleged noncompliance and no specific supporting facts. The court held ICE is required to provide specific reasons for revocation regardless of whether the basis is changed circumstances or a violation of conditions.

Notice Issued After Interview

Separately, even if the Notice had been substantively adequate, it was dated five days after arrest and four days after the informal interview. Because the Notice came after the interview, Mohammad A. had no opportunity to prepare a meaningful response or gather evidence in opposition at the interview — defeating the regulatory purpose of the notice requirement.

Recommendation

The court did not reach Mohammad A.'s other grounds for relief (asylum status, missed cancer treatment, or prior failed removal efforts), resolving the case solely on ICE's failure to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).

Next Steps

This is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Objections are due by March 4, 2026; responses to objections are due by March 5, 2026. The assigned district judge (Judge John R. Tunheim, based on the 'JRT' designation in the case number) will make the final ruling.