Xiong v. Warden
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-01656
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Shoua X. v. Warden, Freeborn Adult Detention Center, Judge Menendez ordered the immediate release of an immigration detainee because federal officials violated their own procedures when revoking his supervised release.
Noncitizens subject to final orders of removal who have been placed on supervised release (Orders of Supervision) and then re-detained by ICE, particularly those where ICE detains the person before formally revoking supervised release or provides only vague, conclusory notices of revocation. Also relevant to those seeking to raise citizenship claims as a defense to removal in federal district court.
What happened
In Shoua X. v. Warden, Freeborn Adult Detention Center (Case No. 26-cv-1656), Shoua X., a national of Thailand and citizen of Laos who has lived in the United States since 1984 as a lawful permanent resident, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in December 2025 and held at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota. He filed a petition asking the court to order his release, raising two main arguments: first, that he automatically became a U.S. citizen through a federal law called the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, making his deportation order invalid; and second, that ICE failed to follow its own rules when it revoked his supervised release and re-detained him.
The court focused first on ICE's failure to follow the federal regulation governing how supervised release can be revoked. That regulation requires ICE to give a person notice of the reasons for revocation and to hold an informal interview promptly after the person is returned to custody. Here, ICE detained Mr. X. six days before it formally revoked his supervised release — which the court found was itself improper — and the notice ICE provided gave only vague, conclusory reasons without explaining what conditions he had violated or what specific changed circumstances justified the revocation. The court found these failures violated ICE's own governing rules.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez granted the petition in part, ordering ICE to release Shoua X. within 48 hours based on the regulatory violations. However, the court denied his request for an order preventing any future arrest, explaining that a future arrest could be lawful if the government follows the proper procedures. On his citizenship claim, the court agreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation that it lacks legal authority (jurisdiction) to review or invalidate a final order of removal, so it declined to rule on that argument and dissolved the earlier temporary restraining order that had prohibited his removal from Minnesota.
The detailed version
- Xiong v. Warden · No. 0:26-cv-01656
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 6, 2026
Background
Shoua X. is a national of Thailand and a citizen of Laos who came to the United States as a refugee with his parents in 1984 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1987. His father became a U.S. citizen in 1995 when Mr. X. was 12 years old. A final order of removal was entered against Mr. X. on July 29, 2004, which he did not appeal. He was initially detained but released on an Order of Supervision ("OSUP") — a form of supervised release for noncitizens subject to a removal order — on November 4, 2004. He was again detained in 2008 following a Minnesota state criminal conviction and released in 2009 on another OSUP.
On December 10, 2025, ICE agents detained Mr. X. at his residence. Six days later, on December 16, 2025, ICE formally revoked his OSUP. Mr. X. is held at the Freeborn County Jail in Albert Lea, Minnesota. He filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action seeking release from custody — on February 26, 2026. The court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on March 5, 2026, prohibiting his removal from Minnesota pending further proceedings.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on June 3, 2026, recommending that the petition be granted in part and denied in part and that Mr. X. be immediately released. Both Mr. X. and Respondents filed objections.
Legal Framework
Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus when a person is held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. District courts have authority to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Where a party files specific objections to an R&R, the district court reviews those portions de novo (i.e., fresh, without deference to the magistrate judge). Portions not specifically objected to are reviewed for clear error only. The district court may accept, reject, or modify the R&R in whole or in part.
The OSUP Claim — Regulatory Noncompliance
The court began with Mr. X.'s argument that ICE failed to follow the federal regulation governing OSUP revocations: 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). That regulation permits ICE to revoke an OSUP if the noncitizen violates its conditions or if changed circumstances create a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Critically, Section 241.13(i)(3) requires that upon revocation, the noncitizen must be notified of the reasons for revocation and that ICE must conduct an initial informal interview "promptly" after the person is returned to custody.
The court identified multiple violations:
Pre-revocation detention
Mr. X. was detained on December 10, 2025 — six days before his OSUP was formally revoked on December 16, 2025. The court held, consistent with other decisions in the District of Minnesota, that it is improper to re-detain a noncitizen before their OSUP is actually revoked.
Failure to conduct a prompt interview
Even assuming an informal interview occurred on December 16, the court found that a six-day delay between detention and any interview is unlikely to satisfy the "promptly" requirement of the regulation, contrasting the facts here with cases where courts had found same-day interviews to be prompt.
Insufficient notice of reasons
The notice provided to Mr. X. stated only that he "ha[d] not been compliant with the terms of your release" and that "due to changes in circumstances, ICE will pursue new efforts to remove you to Laos." The court held this was insufficient because the notice did not identify how he had been noncompliant, what the changed circumstances were, or what specific removal efforts were being pursued. Applying the definition of "reasons" as "facts probative of the likelihood of future removal," the court found that conclusory assertions do not satisfy Section 241.13(i)(3).
Because federal agencies are required to follow their own regulations under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, the court found the regulatory violations warranted Mr. X.'s release. The court noted that expired travel documents issued by Laos on January 30, 2026 did not change this analysis. The court ordered Respondents to release Mr. X. within 48 hours.
The court denied Mr. X.'s request for an order precluding future rearrest, reasoning that because the basis for release is regulatory noncompliance — not a finding that he cannot lawfully be detained — a future arrest would be permissible if the government follows proper procedures.
The Citizenship Claim and TRO
Mr. X. separately argued that he automatically became a U.S. citizen under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 ("CCA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1431, when his father naturalized in 1995 while Mr. X. was a minor. If correct, this would mean the government lacked authority to deport him at all.
Magistrate Judge Brisbois found Mr. X. had a "nonfrivolous claim" of U.S. citizenship but recommended denying it on jurisdictional grounds — finding that the claim was, in substance, an attack on the validity of the 2004 final order of removal, over which 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) strips district courts of jurisdiction. Judge Brisbois nonetheless recommended maintaining the TRO to allow Mr. X. time to pursue his citizenship claim elsewhere.
The district court agreed with Judge Brisbois on the jurisdictional question. Under Section 1252(a)(5), a petition for review to the court of appeals is the exclusive means of reviewing a final removal order, and the court found that Mr. X.'s citizenship claim was in essence an indirect challenge to that order. The court therefore lacks authority to grant the requested relief.
However, the court departed from the R&R's recommendation to maintain the TRO. The court reasoned that, without jurisdiction over the citizenship claim, continuing the injunctive relief of the TRO would not be an appropriate exercise of the court's authority. Accordingly, the court dissolved the March 5, 2026 TRO. The court noted that other avenues may be available to Mr. X. to pursue his citizenship claim, but that they cannot be pursued through habeas or by attacking the removal order in this court.
Disposition
The court accepted the R&R as modified and:
- Granted the petition in part;
- Ordered Respondents to release Shoua X. within 48 hours and to file a confirmation notice on the docket;
- Dissolved the March 5, 2026 Temporary Restraining Order;
- Denied Mr. X.'s request for an order precluding rearrest.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.