Archilla v. Bondi
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02144
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Archilla v. Bondi, Judge Tostrud ordered the release of immigration detainee Sarail A. from ICE custody, ruling that ICE violated its own regulations by revoking his supervised release without telling him what specific circumstances had changed to justify re-detaining him.
Noncitizens detained by ICE under post-removal-order supervision who have had their supervised release revoked, particularly those who may not have received specific factual reasons for their revocation. Also relevant to ICE officials and attorneys handling revocation proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13.
What happened
In Archilla v. Bondi, Sarail A., a noncitizen held at the Freeborn County Detention Center by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), challenged his re-detention after ICE revoked his supervised release in May 2025. Sarail had been ordered removed from the United States in 2017 after a drug conviction, but ICE could not remove him and eventually released him on supervised release in 2020. In May 2025, ICE revoked that release, citing only 'changed circumstances' and a 'significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,' without specifying what had actually changed.
The core legal question was whether ICE's notice of revocation satisfied its own regulations, specifically 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3), which requires ICE to notify a detainee of the 'reasons for revocation' and give the person a meaningful opportunity to respond. A Magistrate Judge (a lower-level federal judicial officer who assists district judges) recommended granting Sarail's petition for release, finding that ICE's vague notice failed to tell Sarail what circumstances had changed, making it impossible for him to respond meaningfully. The government objected, arguing that naming the category of 'changed circumstances' was sufficient notice under the regulation.
Judge Tostrud overruled the government's objections and accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. The court found, using plain dictionary definitions, the regulatory context, and persuasive case law from multiple districts, that the word 'reasons' in the regulation requires ICE to provide the specific facts behind its decision—not just a reference to a regulatory category. Because ICE failed to explain what changed, it also failed to properly determine whether Sarail's removal was actually likely in the foreseeable future, as required by the regulation. Sarail was ordered released, subject to the conditions of his prior supervised release order.
The detailed version
In Archilla v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-2144 (ECT/JFD), U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the District of Minnesota granted Sarail A.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order requiring the government to justify a person's detention) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering his release from ICE custody at the Freeborn County Detention Center, subject to the conditions of his prior order of supervision.
Background
In 2010, Sarail pleaded guilty to drug distribution offenses and was sentenced to 144 months in prison. Upon release, he was arrested by ICE in 2017 under a charge of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (removal of noncitizens with certain criminal convictions), and a final order of removal was issued in August 2017. ICE detained him for approximately three years while attempting to remove him. Sarail claimed Canadian citizenship, but Canadian authorities found no record of his birth there. ICE also contacted the Jamaican consulate about a travel document but received no response. In November 2020, ICE released Sarail on an Order of Supervision in compliance with a then-existing court order in another case. ICE alleged Sarail missed four required biometric check-ins between 2023 and 2025.
On May 6, 2025, ICE issued a Notice of Revocation of Release, stating there was 'a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future' due to 'changed circumstances' and citing 8 C.F.R. § 241.4, but providing no specifics about what had changed. An informal interview was held the same day. After the petition was filed, ICE received guidance that Jamaica was cooperating with travel documents, and ICE requested a search for Sarail's Jamaican birth certificate—but no record evidence established his Jamaican citizenship.
Legal Framework
Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, which governs post-order detention review for individuals whose removal has proved difficult, ICE may revoke supervised release either for a violation of release conditions or for 'changed circumstances' suggesting a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. § 241.13(i)(3) requires ICE to notify the detainee of the 'reasons for revocation' and conduct an informal interview to allow the detainee to respond and submit evidence. § 241.13(f) lists factors ICE must consider in determining whether removal is significantly likely, including the detainee's compliance history, ICE's history of removals to the country in question, and the State Department's views.
Rulings on Objections
Objections 1–3 (Adequacy of Notice and Opportunity to Respond): The government argued that identifying 'changed circumstances' as the category of revocation satisfied the regulatory notice requirement, invoking the expressio unius canon (the idea that listing some items implies exclusion of others not listed). Judge Tostrud rejected this. Applying standard dictionary definitions, the court held that 'reasons' means a statement that explains or justifies an action—not merely a label. The court noted that other uses of 'reason' in the same regulation refer to specific facts probative of removal likelihood, supporting a consistent reading. The court also found the expressio unius argument inapplicable because the regulatory context itself demonstrated that specific facts were required. Multiple district court decisions (Nguyen v. Hyde, Liu v. Carter, Roble v. Bondi) supported the conclusion that conclusory references to 'changed circumstances' do not satisfy § 241.13(i)(3). Because the notice was insufficient, Sarail could not meaningfully respond, and ICE also failed to meet the subsequent procedural requirements of the regulation.
Objection 4 (Proper Determination of Likelihood of Removal): The government argued that Sarail had not directly challenged the sufficiency of ICE's underlying determination, and that the § 241.13(f) factors should not apply to a § 241.13(i)(2) revocation decision. The court disagreed on both points. Reading Sarail's pro se petition liberally (as courts are required to do for self-represented litigants), the court found that Sarail had effectively challenged ICE's determination. On the merits, the court agreed with the First Circuit's reasoning in Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608 (1st Cir. 2023), that the § 241.13(f) factors inform any ICE determination of whether removal is significantly likely, including in the revocation context. The Eighth Circuit had not ruled on this issue, but no contrary authority was cited by respondents.
Disposition
Judge Tostrud overruled all four government objections, accepted Magistrate Judge Docherty's Report and Recommendation, granted the habeas petition, and ordered Sarail released subject to his prior supervision conditions. The emergency motion for expedited handling and the motion for a temporary restraining order (to the extent it sought release) were granted. Requests for injunctive relief (seeking to prevent future re-detention without court approval) were denied. Lisa Monaco was terminated as a respondent. The Freeborn County Detention Center warden was not included among the respondents subject to these rulings.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.