796 F.Supp.3d 703
W.D. Wash.2025Background
- Petitioner Phong Thanh Nguyen: Vietnamese refugee who entered U.S. in 1975, became an LPR in 1978, convicted of second-degree assault (1999), and ordered removed to Vietnam in 2000; released on an order of supervision after Zadvydas and complied for decades.
- ICE re-detained Nguyen on July 16, 2025 during a routine check-in; ICE initially claimed Vietnam was reviewing issuance of travel documents but had not submitted a travel-document request at detention.
- ICE later submitted a travel-document request (Aug. 7, 2025); Vietnam historically declined repatriation of many pre-1995 arrivals and the 2020 U.S.–Vietnam MOU’s eligibility criteria are redacted/publicly undisclosed.
- ICE issued a July 9, 2025 memo changing third-country removal procedures; parallel national litigation (D.V.D.) produced a district-court injunction that the Supreme Court stayed.
- Petitioner sought habeas relief and a preliminary injunction: the court found Nguyen likely to succeed under Zadvydas, found ICE’s evidence insufficient to rebut his showing, and ordered immediate release and an injunction barring removal to any country other than Vietnam without notice/reopened proceedings and barring removal to countries where he would likely face imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of relief sought (mandatory v. prohibitory) | Nguyen seeks release and bar on third-country removal; release preserves pre-litigation status (released on supervision) | Government says release is mandatory relief (ultimate habeas relief) and therefore disfavored | Court treated release as preserving status quo (prohibitory) and applied that standard; granted release |
| Re-detention under Zadvydas/INA (indefinite detention) | Nguyen: detention is indefinite; no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future given his facts and Vietnam’s historical refusals | Government: increased removals to Vietnam and MOU make removal reasonably foreseeable; detention lawful | Court: Nguyen met initial Zadvydas burden; government failed to rebut with individualized evidence; detention unlawful; release ordered |
| Third-country removal and due process (notice/reopening) | Nguyen: cannot be removed to a third country without meaningful notice and opportunity to reopen and adjudicate withholding/CAT claims | Government: ICE’s July 9 memo provides procedures; D.V.D. litigation/stay limits relief | Court: Ninth Circuit precedent (Andriasian/Aden) requires meaningful notice and reopening; Nguyen likely to succeed; enjoined third-country removal absent notice/hearing |
| Punitive third-country removal (Wong Wing / constitutional) | Nguyen: removing noncitizens to countries where they will be imprisoned is punitive and violates Fifth/Eighth Amendment protections | Government: largely did not contest the merits here and relied on D.V.D. arguments | Court: Nguyen likely to succeed that removal to countries where he is likely imprisoned is unconstitutional; enjoined removal to such countries |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (statute construed to forbid indefinite post-removal-order detention; six-month presumptive period)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary-injunction standard)
- Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) (constitutional limits on punitive detention/deportation without trial)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (constitutional considerations in immigration detention)
- Andriasian v. I.N.S., 180 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 1999) (notice and opportunity required when a country of removal is designated)
- Aden v. Nielsen, 409 F. Supp. 3d 998 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (applying Mathews test; right to meaningful opportunity to pursue withholding claims before third-country removal)
- Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) (Zadvydas framework applied in Ninth Circuit)
- Pelich v. I.N.S., 329 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden allocation under Zadvydas)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) (mandatory v. prohibitory injunction guidance)
- Boardman v. Pacific Seafood Group, 822 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2016) (voluntary-stipulation promises insufficient to defeat irreparable-harm showing)
- D.V.D. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 778 F. Supp. 3d 355 (D. Mass. 2025) (district-court class injunction on third-country removals; later stayed by Supreme Court)