Moussa S. v. Bondi

Background

Moussa S. is a citizen of Ivory Coast who had lived in the United States since March 2021. A removal order was entered against him in September 2021. He was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on an Order of Supervision on or about December 13, 2021, and lived with a Minnesota couple who served as his hosts and sponsors. The couple later became his guardians through a Minnesota state-court process.

Moussa S. applied for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and permanent residency in August 2022. His Special Immigrant Juvenile Status application was granted on March 2, 2023, and he received four years of deferred action. His permanent-residence application was still pending at that time. Since his release, he had complied with the terms of his supervision and attended all immigration check-ins. He also learned English, obtained a high school diploma, and held a valid work permit.

At a February 12, 2026 check-in, an immigration agent took Moussa S. and one of his sponsors to a secured area and stated that he did not have “status” and would be detained. The agent did not tell him that his supervision order was being revoked or give another reason for detention. Officials later issued a Notice of Revocation of Release stating that he had failed to apply for a travel document to Vietnam, that circumstances had changed so removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was seeking a travel document for removal to Ivory Coast.

Legal claims and analysis

Moussa S. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure allowing a detained person to challenge custody that violates federal law or the Constitution. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction because the petition challenged the revocation of supervised release and the lawfulness of his new detention, not the underlying removal order.

The court focused on 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, which governs revocation of supervised release after a removal order. Under that regulation, detention based on changed circumstances requires a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court determined that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had the burden to show the changed circumstances justifying revocation and renewed detention.

The court found that officials had not shown that Moussa S. violated a release condition. The notice’s reference to Vietnam was false because the record showed no connection between Moussa S. and Vietnam. The government later asserted that the reference was a mistake and that Moussa S. had failed to cooperate in obtaining a travel document from Ivory Coast, but it provided no declaration from a person with personal knowledge and did not explain how he supposedly failed to cooperate. The court therefore gave no weight to that assertion.

The court also found that officials had not shown that, when they detained Moussa S., they had determined that his removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government relied on a general statement about current information concerning citizens of Ivory Coast with final removal orders. The court found that statement insufficient to establish changed circumstances specific to Moussa S. The notice also said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was seeking a travel document, but the government did not submit the first travel-document request until February 22, ten days after the detention. The court concluded that later efforts did not justify the earlier detention.

In addition, the court found violations of § 241.13(i)(3), which requires notice of the reasons for revocation and a prompt informal interview allowing the detained person to respond and present information. The notice and interview did not identify the changed circumstances supporting revocation. Moussa S. requested to speak with his lawyer during the interview but was not given access to the lawyer.

The court did not reach Moussa S.’s alternative claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment, or the Administrative Procedure Act because the regulatory violations independently supported relief.

Recommended disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that the amended petition be granted. The recommendation called for Moussa S. to be released no later than 48 hours after a district court order adopting the recommendation, with the specific procedure depending on whether he was detained inside or outside Minnesota. It also recommended that officials return his personal effects, impose no release conditions beyond those in his existing supervision order, and refrain from detaining him again unless they complied with § 241.13(i)(3). If he were detained again after that process, officials would have to update the court within 24 hours.

The recommendation also allowed Moussa S. to file a separate request within 30 days after final judgment for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The opinion states that the report and recommendation was not itself an order or judgment and was not directly appealable; the parties could file objections by February 27, 2026, with responses due March 2, 2026.