Chay T. v. Mullin
Chay T. v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; David Venturella, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-02908
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Chay T. v. Mullin, Judge Provinzino denied Chay T.'s third habeas petition challenging his immigration detention, finding his removal to Laos remains reasonably foreseeable.
Noncitizens held in immigration detention who have final orders of removal and who challenge continued detention on due process grounds, particularly those whose removal has been delayed in part due to court injunctions entered during prior habeas proceedings.
What happened
In Chay T. v. Mullin (Case No. 26-cv-2908), Chay T., a native of Laos who was ordered removed from the United States in October 2012, has been held in immigration detention since December 2025. He filed this, his third petition asking a federal court to order his release, arguing that his continued detention violates his constitutional right to due process because his removal is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
The court applied the legal framework from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, which holds that the government generally has six months after a removal order becomes final to actually carry out the removal. After that period, a detainee can challenge continued detention by showing good reason to believe removal is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government can then respond with evidence that removal is, in fact, likely. The court found that the government had already obtained travel documents from Laos and had been prepared to remove Chay as early as March 2026, but was blocked from doing so by court-ordered injunctions issued while Chay's earlier petitions were being decided. The court concluded that the delays in removing Chay were caused by those injunctions — not by any inability of the government to carry out the removal — and that Chay could not use delays resulting from his own court filings to argue that removal was unlikely.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino denied Chay T.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed this action without prejudice. The court also warned Chay that any future habeas petitions will be assigned to this court and that no further automatic injunctions barring removal will be issued while those petitions are pending.
The detailed version
- Chay T. v. Mullin · No. 0:26-cv-02908
- Laura M. Provinzino
- June 30, 2026
Background
Chay T. is a native and citizen of Laos who entered the United States in 1979 and became a legal permanent resident in 1981. After being convicted of having sexual relations with a minor, he was ordered removed from the United States in October 2012. Because the government was unable to carry out the removal to Laos at that time, Chay was released under an order of supervision ("OSUP"), which is a conditional-release arrangement allowing an immigration detainee to remain in the community subject to reporting requirements and other conditions.
On December 11, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") arrested Chay at his home. Three days later, ICE notified Chay that his OSUP had been revoked. ICE then requested a travel document — a document issued by Laos that would allow Chay to be returned there — and received it on February 2, 2026. ICE began planning a charter flight to remove Chay to Laos.
Procedural History
This is Chay's third habeas corpus petition — that is, his third court filing asking a federal judge to order his release from custody on the ground that the detention is unlawful.
First petition (Chay I)
On February 12, 2026, Chay filed a habeas petition raising Fourth Amendment, statutory, and due process claims. United States District Judge Daniel M. Traynor enjoined Chay's removal from the District of Minnesota while the case was pending and then denied the petition on March 3, 2026.
Second petition (Chay II)
On March 5, 2026, Chay filed a second habeas petition, this time including a due process claim under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), along with similar claims from the first petition. Again, an injunction barring removal was entered while the case was pending. ICE had scheduled Chay's transfer to a staging center for a removal charter flight to occur on or before March 20, 2026, but postponed that transfer because of the injunction. After Judge Traynor denied the second petition on April 1, 2026, ICE did not have enough time to carry out the removal before Chay's travel documents expired on April 30, 2026. ICE submitted a request to renew the travel documents on April 19, 2026, and a second renewal request on June 8, 2026.
Third petition (this case)
On June 10, 2026, Chay filed the present habeas petition again raising a Zadvydas due process claim. This Court set a briefing schedule and entered an injunction barring Chay's removal from the District of Minnesota during the pendency of this petition. Both sides timely submitted briefs.
Legal Framework
Federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A), requires that a noncitizen under a final removal order be detained while the government works to carry out the removal. However, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not permit indefinite detention. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court held that the government has a presumptively reasonable six-month period after the removal order becomes final to carry out the removal. After that period expires, if the detainee provides "good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future," the government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. If the government cannot rebut the showing, the detainee must be released subject to supervision conditions.
Analysis and Holding
The court first found that the six-month presumptively reasonable detention period had expired: Chay's removal order became final in 2012, and his most recent detention began on December 11, 2025, meaning the six-month period ended no later than June 11, 2026.
However, the court found that Chay failed to provide "good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." The court relied on the following facts from the record:
- The government had already successfully obtained Laotian travel documents for Chay. - The government had concrete plans to remove Chay as early as March 20, 2026. - The failure to carry out removal during the months since December 2025 was attributable not to conditions in Laos or operational barriers faced by ICE, but to federal court injunctions entered in each of Chay's three habeas cases. - Absent those injunctions, the record showed ICE was ready and able to remove Chay. - ICE had recently renewed its travel document requests, and given its prior success, the court found it likely those efforts would succeed.
The court rejected Chay's argument that the government had never actually procured Laotian travel documents, finding that argument unsupported by anything beyond conjecture, which is insufficient to meet the petitioner's burden of proving illegal detention by a preponderance of the evidence.
The court explicitly stated it did not fault Chay for filing successive habeas petitions, acknowledging he is legally entitled to do so. However, it concluded that a detainee cannot use delays caused by his own court-ordered injunctions as evidence that removal is not foreseeable.
Disposition and Warning
Judge Provinzino denied Chay's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The court also issued a warning in a footnote: any further habeas petitions Chay files will be assigned to this court, and this court will no longer enter an injunction barring removal during the pendency of the petition.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.