Thongvilay v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office
- 3:23-cv-05724
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Thongvilay v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, the court ordered respondents to explain why detention relief should not issue.
Pamot Thongvilay, who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a removal order, and the government respondents responsible for responding to his detention challenge.
What happened
In Thongvilay v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, Pamot Thongvilay challenged his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He alleged that removal to Laos was unlikely and that his detention violated federal law.
The court found that the petition raised a legally valid basis for challenging post-removal detention. It said the government must respond to Thongvilay’s claim that there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The court ordered respondents to answer the petition, or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, within 60 days. It did not decide whether Thongvilay must be released. The opinion’s signature does not provide a readable full name for the judge, so this summary identifies the decision-maker as the court.
The detailed version
- Thongvilay v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office · No. 3:23-cv-05724
- Jan. 8, 2024
Background
Pamot Thongvilay filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking federal habeas relief—court review of the legality of his detention—from continued custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to the petition, Thongvilay is a noncitizen who was born in Laos, entered the United States as a refugee in 1980, and became a lawful permanent resident in 1982. He was convicted of first-degree murder and second-degree burglary in 1996.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Thongvilay on or around June 28, 2023. He was ordered removed on July 12, 2023, and did not appeal that order. He cooperated with efforts to remove him to Laos, but the petition stated that removal was unlikely because Laos does not have a repatriation agreement with the United States. Thongvilay challenged his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
Court’s analysis
The court explained that federal district courts have jurisdiction under § 2241 to consider statutory and constitutional challenges to detention after a removal order. Citing Zadvydas v. Davis, the court stated that § 1231(a)(6) does not authorize indefinite detention. It also stated that detention is presumptively constitutional for six months, but that after six months, a detained person who provides good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future may require the government to present evidence addressing that showing.
The court concluded that Thongvilay had provided good reason to believe that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. It therefore determined that the petition was not plainly without merit and that a response from the respondents was warranted.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause rather than deciding the petition. It directed the Clerk to serve the respondents, their counsel, the Attorney General, and Thongvilay with the order, petition, and attachments. It ordered the respondents to file and serve an answer within 60 days, including relevant documents and an explanation of why the requested detention relief should not be granted. The respondents may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
If the respondents file a motion to dismiss, Thongvilay may file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 60 days, and the respondents may file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition. The order also required Thongvilay to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines. The court did not grant or deny release and did not finally resolve the detention challenge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.