Kong L. v. Easterwood

Background

Kong L. is a citizen of Laos who entered the United States as a refugee in 1989 and became a lawful permanent resident that year. After a burglary conviction, he was ordered removed to Laos in May 2005. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued an I-205 administrative warrant for his arrest, but Kong was released on an Order of Supervision (OSUP) in August 2005 because his removal did not occur.

The OSUP required Kong to remain law-abiding, help the Government obtain travel documents, and attend in-person check-ins. The Government obtained a travel document for Kong from Laos on June 18, 2026. When Kong attended a scheduled check-in on August 18, 2026, the Government arrested him, revoked his OSUP, and served him with a notice stating that his removal was scheduled to occur no later than September 16, 2026. ICE also gave him an informal interview, during which he submitted a written statement. Kong remained detained at the Sherburne County Jail.

Claims and analysis

Kong brought four related claims challenging his detention: that his arrest lacked a valid warrant; that the Government unlawfully revoked his OSUP; that his detention violated due process; and that the Government violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow its OSUP-revocation procedures.

The court rejected the warrant claim. It explained that federal law permits an arrest warrant for a person subject to removal and that, without a warrant, ICE officers have more limited arrest authority. The Government produced both the 2005 and 2026 I-205 warrants, although it relied on the 2005 warrant. The court concluded that the 2005 warrant remained valid because an unexecuted I-205 warrant continues to support a future arrest until removal occurs. The court also concluded that ICE’s issuance of the 2026 warrant did not invalidate the earlier warrant, even though Kong argued that the newer warrant was defective.

The court also found that the Government complied with the regulations governing OSUP revocation. Those regulations allow revocation when a person violates the release conditions or when circumstances change so that removal becomes significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court held that Laos’s issuance of a travel document was a qualifying change in circumstances. It further found that Kong received notice of the revocation on the day of his arrest and received the required informal interview and opportunity to respond.

The court rejected Kong’s argument that ICE had to provide a more detailed explanation of its assessment. It found that ICE adequately explained its decision by stating that it had obtained a travel document and scheduled Kong’s removal. The court also rejected the due-process claim, reasoning that the informal interview and the later custody-review process provided the procedures required for Kong to challenge the revocation and detention.

Disposition

The court denied Kong L.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning his petition challenging the legality of his detention was unsuccessful. It also ordered that the matter be dismissed without prejudice, using the court’s stated disposition. The court entered judgment accordingly.

Classification note

This is a substantive ruling because the court reached the merits of Kong’s detention claims and decided that his arrest, OSUP revocation, and continued detention were lawful.