Roble v. Bondi
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-03196
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Roble v. Bondi, Judge Provinzino of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Somali national Mahamed Abdi Roble's petition for release from immigration detention, ruling that ICE violated its own regulations by failing to give him adequate notice of why his supervised release was revoked and by failing to show that changed circumstances made his removal significantly likely in the foreseeable future.
Noncitizens (non-U.S. citizens) who have been granted deferral of removal or other immigration protection from deportation, released on supervised release orders by ICE, and then re-detained — particularly those in Minnesota and potentially elsewhere — may be affected by this ruling's analysis of what notice and factual showing ICE must provide before revoking supervised release and re-detaining such individuals.
What happened
In Roble v. Bondi, Mahamed Abdi Roble, a Somali national and longtime lawful permanent resident, had been released from immigration custody in 2019 under a supervised release order after the government was unable to deport him — his removal to Somalia was blocked because he had been granted protection under the Convention Against Torture (an international treaty that bars sending someone to a country where they are likely to be tortured) based on death threats connected to his half-brother's political activism. Roble complied with all conditions of that release for years, but on July 18, 2025, ICE arrested and re-detained him, giving him a written notice that said only that his removal was now 'significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future' — without explaining what had actually changed.
Roble filed a petition asking the court to order his release, arguing that ICE broke its own rules and violated his constitutional rights. The government responded that ICE had requested 'third country removal assistance' from its headquarters on August 11, 2025 — weeks after Roble was already detained — and that this constituted the 'changed circumstances' required by regulation to justify re-detention. Roble also asked for broader orders restricting ICE from re-detaining him in the future and from detaining a class of other noncitizens in Minnesota.
Judge Provinzino granted Roble's petition and ordered the government to release him by 5:00 p.m. on August 27, 2025, under the same supervised release conditions from 2019. The court found two independent regulatory violations: first, ICE's notice to Roble merely copied the words of the regulation without stating any actual reasons for his re-detention, making it impossible for him to meaningfully respond; second, even a month into his detention, the government still failed to show any genuine changed circumstances making removal realistically likely, offering only a vague internal request for assistance with no details or expected outcome. The court declined to grant the broader injunctive relief Roble sought, finding the risk of future illegal re-detention too speculative and the class-wide relief unsupported by the individual petition. Roble's motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot.
The detailed version
- Roble v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3196 (LMP/LIB)
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- August 25, 2025
Background and Parties
Petitioner Mahamed Abdi Roble is a Somali national who came to the United States as a refugee in 1995 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1997. Following convictions for a drug offense, violation of a no-contact order, and two domestic assault offenses (one felony), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings in 2017. In 2018, an immigration judge (IJ) ordered Roble removed but granted withholding of removal to Somalia, citing a credible death threat: Roble's half-brother is a prominent Somali secular political activist who has an outstanding fatwa — a religious decree condemning him and his family to death — issued by Islamist militant groups including al-Shabaab. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the withholding grant because Roble's domestic assault conviction rendered him ineligible, but on remand the BIA granted Roble deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding a clear probability of future torture if he were returned to Somalia. The parties agree that deferral remains in effect.
Because ICE could not remove Roble to Somalia (blocked by CAT) or find a suitable third country, it released him on an Order of Supervision in October 2019 with conditions. Roble complied with all conditions. On July 18, 2025, ICE arrested and re-detained Roble, providing a written notice stating only that ICE had determined there was 'a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future' and that 'based on changed circumstances' he would be returned to custody. No specific reasons or facts were identified. Roble has been held at the Freeborn County Adult Detention Center in Albert Lea, Minnesota.
Procedural History
On August 11, 2025, Roble filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal mechanism allowing a court to order the release of a person held unlawfully) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court set an expedited briefing schedule. Both sides submitted briefs. The court ruled on August 25, 2025.
Claims
Roble raised three claims: (1) ICE violated its own regulations (8 C.F.R. § 241.13) by failing to provide adequate notice of reasons for revocation and failing to demonstrate changed circumstances justifying re-detention; (2) ICE's conduct was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and (3) the detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court resolved the case solely on the regulatory claim, declining to reach the APA and constitutional claims under the principle that courts should avoid constitutional rulings when a case can be decided on other grounds.
Legal Framework
Under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the government cannot detain a noncitizen indefinitely when removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 implements this principle: ICE must release a noncitizen on an Order of Supervision if removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future (subsection (g)–(h)), but may re-detain if, 'on account of changed circumstances,' ICE determines removal has become significantly likely (subsection (i)(2)). Upon re-detention, ICE must notify the noncitizen of the 'reasons for revocation' and promptly conduct an informal interview at which the noncitizen may present evidence against the revocation (subsection (i)(3)). The factors ICE must consider under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(f) include: the noncitizen's history of compliance with the removal order; ICE's history of efforts to remove similarly situated noncitizens; the ongoing nature of ICE's efforts and the noncitizen's cooperation; reasonably foreseeable results of those efforts; and the State Department's views on removal prospects.
Holdings
Inadequate Notice: The court held that ICE's written notice to Roble violated 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3) because it did nothing more than restate the regulatory standard — it contained no individualized reasons explaining what changed circumstances existed. The notice did not mention any travel document, any third-country negotiation, or any other specific fact. The court noted that a notice identical in substance could be issued to any noncitizen re-detained under the regulation, making it non-individualized. Because the regulation requires that the notice state 'reasons' to enable the noncitizen to 'respond to the reasons for revocation' at the subsequent interview, a notice that states no reasons fails as a matter of law. The court cited a similar recommendation from a Minnesota magistrate judge in Sarail A. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-2144 (D. Minn. June 17, 2025).
Failure to Demonstrate Changed Circumstances: The court further held — and described as 'more fundamental' — that the government failed to meet its burden to show that changed circumstances render removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court placed the burden on ICE (as the party seeking to change the status quo by re-detaining Roble), citing the 'default rule' from Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), and decisions from other district courts including Hernandez Escalante v. Noem (E.D. Tex. 2025) and Nguyen v. Hyde (D. Mass. 2025). The government's only evidence of changed circumstances was a declaration stating that on August 11, 2025 — more than three weeks after Roble was arrested — ICE officials in St. Paul requested 'third country removal assistance' from ICE headquarters. The court found this bare assertion wholly inadequate: it provided no information about ICE's history of efforts to remove Somali nationals to third countries, no details about what assistance was requested, and no basis to assess whether such assistance would actually result in Roble's removal. The court analogized to Nguyen v. Hyde and Hoac v. Becerra (E.D. Cal. 2025), where similarly vague government assertions about travel documents or pending removal efforts were found insufficient. The court expressly noted that ICE had been unable to remove Roble to a third country back in 2019, and the government offered no explanation for why success was more likely now.
Remedy
The court granted the habeas petition and ordered Roble released from custody no later than 5:00 p.m. CDT on August 27, 2025, under the conditions of his preexisting October 21, 2019 Order of Supervision. Government counsel was ordered to file a declaration by 10:00 a.m. CDT on August 28, 2025 confirming compliance.
The court denied two broader forms of relief: (1) a prospective injunction restricting ICE from re-detaining Roble in the future, because Roble had not shown a sufficient likelihood of future illegal re-detention (the risk was too speculative); and (2) a class-wide injunction barring ICE from detaining similarly situated noncitizens in Minnesota, because Roble had not brought a class action and had not shown the government's conduct harmed anyone besides himself. The court expressly declined to resolve the government's argument that a pending class action in the District of Massachusetts would bar broader relief, finding the speculative-harm ground sufficient on its own.
Roble's motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot.
Respondent Ryan Shea (Freeborn County Sheriff) did not participate in the proceedings.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.