Ge Y. v. Noem
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-01700
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 16
In Ge Y. v. Kristi Noem, et al., Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends granting Ge Y.'s petition for release from immigration detention, finding that ICE violated his constitutional due process rights by arresting him without a warrant, without prior notice, and without following the required federal regulations for revoking his supervised release.
Noncitizens — particularly those from countries that previously did not accept deportees, such as Laos — who were released from ICE custody under long-standing supervision orders and have recently been re-arrested by ICE without prior notice or formal revocation proceedings. Also relevant to Hmong and other Southeast Asian immigrant communities in Minnesota and nationwide facing similar re-arrests under Operation Metro Surge or similar enforcement operations.
What happened
In Ge Y. v. Kristi Noem, et al. (Case No. 26-cv-1700), Ge Y. is a Laotian-born Hmong refugee who entered the United States in 1989 and later became a lawful permanent resident. After criminal convictions in 2002 and 2007, he was ordered removed to Laos in 2012, but because Laos was not accepting deportees, immigration authorities released him in January 2013 under a supervision order — essentially a set of conditions he had to follow while remaining in the country. For nearly thirteen years, Ge Y. complied with all those conditions without incident.
On December 23, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested Ge Y. outside his home in Minnesota as part of an operation called 'Operation Metro Surge.' The officers had no arrest warrant, and they gave Ge Y. no written notice of why his supervised release was being revoked before or during his arrest. A notice was handed to him only after he had already been arrested and transported to a facility in St. Paul — approximately four minutes after it was signed. That notice was also vague, claiming only that he had violated his supervision conditions (without specifying how) and that 'changed circumstances' would allow ICE to pursue removal (without explaining what those circumstances were). Laos later issued travel documents for him in January 2026, but those documents were obtained after his arrest.
Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends that Ge Y.'s petition be granted and that he be immediately released. The recommendation identifies at least three separate and independent violations of the federal regulation governing revocation of supervised release (8 C.F.R. § 241.13): ICE never formally revoked his release before arresting him, it failed to provide him with required advance notice of revocation, and the notice it did provide was too vague to satisfy legal requirements. Judge Brisbois also found that Respondents failed to show any valid legal basis — either a violation of supervision conditions or a genuine changed circumstance — for the arrest in the first place. The judge rejected the government's argument that travel documents obtained after the arrest could cure these violations, and rejected a proposed remedy of simply 'redoing' the process, instead recommending immediate release under the same conditions as his original 2013 supervision order. The objection period was shortened to two days given the urgency of Ge Y.'s continued detention.
The detailed version
This is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois in the District of Minnesota recommending that the court grant Petitioner Ge Y.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action challenging the lawfulness of his detention — and order his immediate release from immigration custody.
Background
Ge Y. is a native of Laos, a member of the Hmong ethnic minority, and entered the United States in 1989 as a refugee at age nineteen. He later obtained lawful permanent resident status, retroactive to 1989. Following criminal convictions in 2002 and 2007, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and on October 16, 2012, an immigration judge ordered him removed to Laos. Both Ge Y. and DHS waived appeal, making the order final that same day. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, a 90-day removal period then commenced, expiring on January 14, 2013.
Because Laos was not accepting repatriated Hmong individuals at that time, ICE could not effectuate removal and released Ge Y. on January 14, 2013, under an Order of Supervision — a form of conditional release requiring compliance with certain terms. For nearly thirteen years, Ge Y. complied with all conditions of that supervision.
On December 23, 2025, ICE arrested Ge Y. outside his Minneapolis home as part of 'Operation Metro Surge.' ICE officers possessed no arrest warrant and provided no documentation stating the basis for the arrest before or during it. After transporting Ge Y. to a St. Paul facility, ICE issued a 'Notice of Revocation of Release,' signed and given to him approximately four minutes later. The notice stated he had 'not been compliant' with supervision terms (without specifying how) and cited 'changes in circumstances' allowing 'new efforts to remove' him (without identifying what changed). ICE requested travel documents from Laos on January 4, 2026; Laos issued them on January 30, 2026. Ge Y. filed this habeas petition on March 2, 2026, seeking immediate release.
Legal Framework
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, once the 90-day removal period expires and ICE releases a person under supervision, redetention is governed by either 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 or § 241.13, depending on whether ICE previously determined there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. If it made that determination, § 241.13 applies. The court found that ICE necessarily made such a determination before releasing Ge Y. in 2013 — because the applicable regulation, § 241.4(e), requires ICE to conclude that travel documents are unavailable or immediate removal is not practicable before releasing a detainee, and the record confirmed Laos was not accepting Hmong deportees at that time.
Under § 241.13(i), revocation of supervised release is permitted only on two grounds: (1) violation of supervision conditions, or (2) changed circumstances making removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. In either case, ICE must provide the individual with notice of the reasons for revocation before redetaining them, and must conduct an informal interview allowing the individual to respond and present rebuttal evidence.
Analysis and Holdings
The court identified at least four separate, independent failures by ICE, each independently sufficient to grant habeas relief:
1. No prior revocation before arrest: The record contains no evidence that any authorized immigration official formally revoked Ge Y.'s supervised release before or during the arrest. ICE arrested him without any prior revocation order, which the court found was a patent due process violation.
2. Failure to provide pre-arrest notice: Section 241.13(i)(3) requires that an individual be notified of the reasons for revocation before redetention. No notice was given before or during the arrest; the notice was provided only after Ge Y. had been arrested and transported to a different city. The court held that post-arrest notice is legally insufficient.
3. Vague and inadequate notice: Even had the notice been timely, the court found it substantively deficient. The notice failed to specify how Ge Y. allegedly violated his supervision conditions and failed to identify any specific 'changed circumstances' supporting a new likelihood of removal. Vague, conclusory assertions cannot satisfy § 241.13(i)'s notice requirement.
4. No valid legal basis for revocation: Respondents did not dispute that Ge Y. was compliant with all supervision conditions, and they identified no particularized 'changed circumstance' specific to him at the time of arrest that would demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal.
The court rejected two arguments advanced by Respondents. First, Respondents argued that travel documents obtained after the arrest satisfied § 241.13's requirements — the court disagreed both because no documents were actually entered into evidence and because post-arrest events cannot retroactively cure pre-arrest due process failures. Second, Respondents proposed that if relief were warranted, the remedy should be to allow ICE to redo the process; the court rejected this, citing consistent District of Minnesota precedent holding that the appropriate remedy is release, not a procedural 'do-over.'
The court also noted in a footnote that even if § 241.4 (rather than § 241.13) applied, Respondents had still failed to comply with § 241.4's own due process requirements, including the requirement of an individualized determination before revocation, so relief would be warranted under either framework.
Recommendation and Procedural Notes
Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends: (1) granting the petition; (2) ordering Respondents to immediately release Ge Y. in Minnesota under no conditions beyond those in his original January 14, 2013 Order of Supervision; (3) requiring return of all personal effects, identification, and immigration documents seized at arrest; (4) requiring Respondents to confirm release within 48 hours of any adopting order; and (5) precluding redetention under legal theories rejected in this proceeding absent materially changed circumstances.
Because this is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order, it is subject to objection by any party. However, noting that the standard 14-day objection period would materially prolong an unlawful detention, Judge Brisbois exercised the court's inherent case management authority to reduce the objection period to 2 days and the response period to 1 day.
This recommendation is not yet a final court order and must be adopted by a district judge to become binding.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.