Por M. v. Noem
Por M. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:26-cv-01546
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Por M. v. Noem, Judge Foster recommends releasing Por because immigration officials detained him without following required supervision-revocation procedures.
Por M. was the person directly affected. The recommendation would require Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood, as the named respondents, to release him from custody if adopted.
What happened
In Por M. v. Noem, Por M. asked the court to order his release from immigration detention. He had been living under an order of supervision after an earlier removal order, but immigration officials arrested him without giving him the required explanation for revoking that supervision or a timely chance to respond.
The court concluded that federal regulations required notice of the reasons for revocation, an informal interview, and a review of the facts before continued detention. The officials did not provide adequate evidence that they followed those requirements or that changed circumstances justified revoking Por’s supervision when they arrested him.
Judge Dulce J. Foster recommends granting the petition and ordering Por’s release as soon as practicable in Minnesota, with his personal belongings. This is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district court order; the respondents could object by March 11, 2026.
The detailed version
- Por M. v. Noem · No. 0:26-cv-01546
- Patrick Schiltz
- Mar. 9, 2026
Background
Por M. is a Hmong person from Laos who entered the United States as a refugee in 1989 and later became a lawful permanent resident. After a 1999 Minnesota felony conviction, an immigration judge entered a removal order in 2000. Immigration officials initially detained Por after his criminal incarceration and later released him under an order of supervision.
On December 10, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Por at his home. The record did not show that officials gave him notice that they were revoking his supervised release or explained the reasons. The government claimed it provided a revocation notice on December 14, but it did not submit that notice or a sworn declaration supporting the claim. The record also did not show that officials gave Por the required informal interview.
ICE requested a travel document for Por on December 19, 2025, and Laos issued one on January 30, 2026. The government said Por would be placed on a future charter flight. He remained detained at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota when he filed this petition.
Legal framework
The petition sought release under the federal habeas statute, which allows a federal court to release a person held in civil detention in violation of federal law. The court focused on 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, which govern supervision after a removal period and the revocation of supervised release.
Under the regulation, ICE may revoke supervised release if the person violates release conditions or if changed circumstances create a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The regulation also requires ICE to notify the person of the reasons for revocation, promptly conduct an informal interview allowing the person to respond, and conduct a custody review addressing disputed facts and whether continued detention is warranted.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the government failed to follow the required procedures. The arrest warrant did not tell Por that his supervised release was being revoked, did not explain the reasons for revocation, and did not inform him of his right to an informal interview. The warrant therefore did not substitute for the required notice.
The court also found that the government had not established that changed circumstances justified revocation when Por was arrested. The travel document was requested nine days after the arrest and issued nearly two months later. The government provided insufficient evidence that successful removal to Laos was likely before the arrest and relied on a vague statement that Por had been subject to a targeted arrest.
Because the government’s detention violated its own regulations, the court concluded that release—not simply allowing the agency to redo the process—was the proper remedy. The court did not decide Por’s other asserted grounds for release, including claims under the removal statute and the Fifth and Fourth Amendments.
Recommended disposition
Judge Foster recommended that Por’s habeas petition be granted and that the respondents release Por from custody as soon as practicable, inside Minnesota, at a safe time and place communicated in advance to counsel, with his personal effects. The report and recommendation states that it is not a final district court order or a directly appealable judgment. The respondents were given until March 11, 2026, to file objections, and Por was given until March 12, 2026, to respond.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.