Chou T. v. Noem

Background

Chou T. belongs to the Hmong ethnic minority of Laos. He was born in a refugee camp in Thailand and entered the United States as a refugee in 1980, when he was 13 months old. He later became a lawful permanent resident, retroactive to the date of his entry.

In 2003, Chou T. pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct. He served more than seven years in prison, was released in 2013, completed parole, and was discharged in 2019. An immigration judge ordered him removed in 2005, but the government could not remove him to Laos. He was released under an order of supervision and, according to the opinion, fully complied with its requirements, including completing ICE check-ins and applying for a work permit each year.

ICE arrested Chou T. at his workplace on December 16, 2025. The opinion states that he was never shown an arrest warrant. ICE served him with a notice revoking his release the next day. The notice said there were changed circumstances and a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, but it did not describe the changed circumstances. Chou T. remained detained at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota when the opinion was issued.

Legal analysis

Chou T. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which permits a person to challenge custody that violates federal law or the Constitution. The court determined that it had jurisdiction because Chou T. was challenging the revocation of supervised release and his new detention, not the underlying removal order.

The court focused on 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, a regulation governing the revocation of supervised release after a removal order. The regulation allows ICE to return a person to custody when changed circumstances show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. It also requires notice of the reasons for revocation, an initial interview, an opportunity to respond, and a review of disputed facts.

The court concluded that the government had the burden to establish the changed circumstances justifying re-detention. It found that Respondents identified no changed circumstances existing when Chou T. was detained. Respondents requested a travel document three days after the detention and obtained one about six weeks later, but the court concluded that the later travel document did not satisfy the government’s burden. The record also did not show that Respondents had taken steps to schedule Chou T.’s removal.

The court separately found that the notice and interview did not comply with § 241.13(i)(3) because they did not identify the changed circumstances supporting the revocation. Because the regulatory violation made the detention unlawful, the court did not reach Chou T.’s alternative arguments under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment.

Recommended disposition

The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be granted. The recommendation would require Respondents to release Chou T. no later than 48 hours after a district court order adopting the recommendation. If he were detained outside Minnesota, Respondents would first have to transport him to Minnesota; if he were detained in Minnesota, they would have to release him as soon as practicable and no later than that 48-hour deadline.

The recommendation also would require Respondents to coordinate with Chou T.’s counsel to avoid leaving him outside in dangerous cold, release him with unaltered personal effects and documents, and impose no release conditions beyond those in his existing order of supervision. Respondents would be barred from re-detaining him unless and until they comply with § 241.13(i)(3). If they later re-detained him after following that process, they would have to file a court update within 24 hours identifying the approximate timing of his removal.

The recommendation also would permit Chou T. to file a separate motion within 30 days after final judgment seeking attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The document was a report and recommendation rather than a final district court order. It stated that objections were due February 23, 2026, and responses to objections were due February 26, 2026.