The petitioner came to the United States as a refugee from Iran in 2001 and later became a lawful permanent resident. After criminal convictions in Oregon he was ordered removed to Iran on 11 September 2014, and was released on an order of supervision in December 2014 because “ICE was unable to obtain travel documents to Iran or a third country.” He remained on release, reporting regularly to ICE, until 9 July 2025, when he was taken into custody at an in-person check-in at the Portland ICE facility. He said he was told he was arrested because the United States had recently bombed Iran. The ICE declaration said removal had become significantly likely; the court recorded that the officer “offers no explanation as to how this determination was made or the basis for it.” ICE had sent a travel document request to Iran in July 2025 and followed it up in November 2025, with no response to either. The petitioner produced an ICE document from November 2024 listing Iran as an “uncooperative” country. The court held that the government did not explain how “these two apparently unsuccessful attempts to communicate with Iranian authorities” showed any likelihood of removal, and that “The vague suggestion that ICE might pursue removal to an unspecified third country at some future time does nothing to demonstrate that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” The court rejected the government’s argument that it should decline the third-country claims because the petitioner was likely a member of the class in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, adopting the analysis in Nguyen v. Scott as Baltodano v. Bondi and Abubaka v. Bondi had done. The government offered no substantive argument on the merits. Following those decisions and Aden v. Nielsen, the court held him entitled to an order that he not be removed to a third country “without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in reopened removal proceedings.” It recorded that the government’s current policy “has not been provided to the Court in this action.” On the claim that third-country removal is punitive, the court recorded that the government had “not provided any substantive response to this claim.” Relying on Nguyen v. Scott, Baltodano, Abubaka and Hambarsonpour v. Bondi, it concluded that “Respondents’ current practice of third country removals paired with imprisonment violates due process,” and enjoined removal “to any third country where he is likely to face imprisonment or harm.”
Caution A district court decision by a magistrate judge, binding only on the parties. The court did not reach the claims that the re-detention itself violated procedural and substantive due process. The finding on the punitive nature of third-country removal was adopted from Nguyen v. Scott, Baltodano v. Bondi and Abubaka v. Bondi; it was not made on evidence about a destination specific to this petitioner, no third country had been named, and the government’s policy was not before the court.
Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Redetention Revocation of supervision Travel documents Third-country removal D.V.D. class action Notice Reopened removal proceedings Unconstitutional punishment Wong Wing
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.