Mohammad A. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Mohammad A. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Administrator Sherburne County Jail, and ICE Field Office Director
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-01585
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Mohammad A. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Administrator Sherburne County Jail, and ICE Field Office Director, Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends granting Mohammad A.'s petition for release from immigration detention because ICE failed to follow its own regulation — 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) — when it revoked his supervision order without giving him adequate written notice of the specific reasons for revocation or a meaningful opportunity to respond before his interview.
Noncitizens under final orders of removal who have been released on supervision orders and are later re-detained by ICE, particularly those whose revocation notices lack specific factual grounds or whose notices were issued after a revocation interview had already occurred.
What happened
In Mohammad A. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Administrator Sherburne County Jail, and ICE Field Office Director, the petitioner is a citizen of Afghanistan who came to the United States as a refugee in 1982, was ordered removed in 2002 after a felony conviction, and was released from immigration detention in 2012 under a supervision order requiring him to comply with certain conditions. In December 2025, ICE re-arrested him as part of an operation called 'Operation Metro Surge' and issued a notice revoking his supervision order, claiming circumstances had changed and that he had not followed his release conditions — but the notice did not explain what those changed circumstances were or how he had failed to comply.
Federal regulations (8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)) require ICE, before revoking a person's supervised release, to notify the individual of the specific reasons for revocation and to give him a real chance to respond and submit evidence before a decision is made. In this case, ICE's notice repeated the general legal standard — that circumstances had changed and removal was likely — without providing any specific facts. Worse, the notice was issued five days after Mohammad A. was already arrested and four days after an interview was already conducted, meaning he had no opportunity to use it to prepare a response.
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends that the petition for release be granted and that Mohammad A. be released subject to the conditions of his prior supervision order, finding that ICE did not follow its own rules. This is a recommendation to the district court judge, not a final order — either side may file objections by March 4, 2026, with responses due by March 5, 2026, and the district court judge will decide whether to adopt, modify, or reject this recommendation.
The detailed version
This case involves a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 — the federal statute allowing people held in U.S. custody to challenge the legality of their detention — by Mohammad A., an Afghan-born refugee who has lived in the United States since 1982. He was ordered removed in 2002 following an aggravated felony conviction. ICE detained him in 2011 and released him in March 2012 under an order of supervision. On December 11, 2025, ICE re-arrested him under 'Operation Metro Surge.' On December 12, an ICE officer conducted an informal interview. On December 16, 2025 — five days after arrest and four days after the interview — ICE issued a Notice of Revocation of Release stating that 'changed circumstances' made removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future and that he had not complied with release conditions, but specifying neither.
As of February 25, 2026, ICE's January 26, 2026 travel document request to the Afghan Embassy remained pending, and the declaration submitted by ICE did not state whether Afghanistan was cooperating. Petitioner filed his habeas petition on February 23, 2026, raising four grounds: (1) protected asylum status; (2) missed cancer chemotherapy appointments; (3) unlawful detention given prior unsuccessful deportation efforts and lack of obtainable Afghan records; and (4) full compliance with supervision conditions. Respondents argued that detention under six months is presumptively reasonable and that the revocation was proper under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
Magistrate Judge Docherty analyzed whether ICE complied with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), which governs revocation of supervised release for persons under final orders of removal. The regulation permits revocation either for violation of release conditions or for changed circumstances creating a significant likelihood of removal, and requires: (1) written notification of the specific reasons for revocation; (2) a prompt informal interview allowing the individual to respond to those stated reasons; (3) an opportunity to submit supporting evidence; and (4) evaluation of contested facts. The court found three independent failures: first, the notice cited 'changed circumstances' and 'significant likelihood of removal' without identifying any specific facts — essentially parroting the regulation's own language, which is insufficient; second, the notice cited noncompliance with release conditions without describing what those violations were; and third, even if the notice had been substantively adequate, it was issued after the interview had already taken place, making it impossible for Mohammad A. to use the notice to prepare a response. Citing Sarail A. v. Bondi, 803 F. Supp. 3d 775 (D. Minn. 2025), and the long-standing principle that agencies must follow their own regulations (tracing to Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954)), the court found the detention unlawful.
Magistrate Judge Docherty recommends: (1) granting the habeas petition; (2) ordering ICE to immediately release Mohammad A. subject to the conditions in his prior supervision order; and (3) ordering ICE to file a notice confirming release within 24 hours of any order adopting this recommendation. Because this is a magistrate judge's report and recommendation — not a final order of the district court — it is not directly appealable. Either party may file written objections by March 4, 2026, with responses due by March 5, 2026. The assigned district court judge will then decide whether to adopt, modify, or reject the recommendation.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.