Prasomsy v. Albarran

Background

Philip Prasomsy filed a petition challenging his detention and an application for a temporary restraining order. He asked the court to order his immediate release, prevent officials from re-detaining him without prior notice and a hearing, and prevent his removal to a third country without procedural protections.

According to the record described in the opinion, Prasomsy was born in a refugee camp in the Philippines in 1982 and entered the United States with his mother as a refugee one month later. He later adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident. In 2002, he was convicted of second-degree robbery with a firearm enhancement and sentenced to 12 years in prison. After his release in 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him under a notice charging him with removability based on an aggravated-felony conviction. The immigration court sustained the charges and ordered his removal to Laos.

ICE could not initially obtain travel documents or remove Prasomsy to Laos, so it released him in June 2017 under an order of supervision. The opinion states that he complied with his reporting requirements and had no criminal arrests after his release. In March 2026, a state court vacated his 2002 conviction as legally invalid. He then filed a motion to reopen his immigration case, which remained pending when this order was issued.

At a September 3, 2026 ICE appointment, officials re-detained Prasomsy because Laos had issued a travel document, but officials did not show the document to him or his counsel. The opinion states that ICE did not provide a meaningful informal interview or an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revoking his release. After his re-detention, ICE served him with a warrant of removal or deportation.

Jurisdiction

The respondents argued that the court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which limits review of certain decisions concerning removal proceedings and removal orders. The court rejected that argument, explaining that Prasomsy’s claims challenged the lawfulness of his post-removal-period detention and the procedures used to re-detain him, rather than the core removal proceedings or the government’s discretionary decision to execute a removal order.

Temporary-restraining-order standard

The court applied the standard used for a preliminary injunction. Prasomsy had to show either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions going to the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored an injunction. Because the government was the opposing party, the court treated the last two factors together.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Prasomsy raised serious legal questions about whether the government violated its own regulations by failing to give him a prompt, informal opportunity to respond to the reasons for his re-detention. The court also found serious legal questions concerning his procedural due process claim. It emphasized his substantial liberty interest after nearly ten years of release under supervision and the lack of procedural safeguards before his re-detention.

The court found likely irreparable harm because Prasomsy was the primary caregiver or financial support for members of his family, including his autistic son, and because his mental health had deteriorated while he was detained. The court also treated the likely deprivation of constitutional rights as irreparable harm.

The court concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored procedural protections against unlawful detention. It found that the government’s potential harm was limited to a short delay in detention if it later demonstrated that detention was needed to prevent danger to the community or flight.

Order

The court granted Prasomsy’s application to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. It ordered the respondents to release him immediately, prohibited them from re-detaining him without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and prohibited them from removing him from the United States until the proceedings had terminated.

The respondents were ordered to provide a status report confirming release by noon on September 9, 2026. The court also ordered them to appear at a September 21, 2026 hearing to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The order remains in effect until 5:00 p.m. on September 22, 2026, or until otherwise directed by the court. The court required no security bond.