An immigration judge ordered the petitioner removed on 7 October 2025 but granted withholding of removal after finding it “more likely than not that [Petitioner’s] life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground if she were removed to Vietnam.” After nearly six months of post-order detention, the District of Arizona granted her first habeas petition on 17 March 2026, when the government conceded that it could not establish a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. She was released on 20 March 2026 on an order of supervision. On 27 April 2026 she attended a routine check-in at the Detroit ICE Field Office and was re-detained for removal to a third country. A declaration by an Acting Deputy Assistant Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations stated that she had been “accepted to be removed to Palau pursuant to a Third Country Removal agreement between the United States and Palau that was signed on December 24, 2025,” and that “The Petitioner’s acceptance by Palau and placement on the manifest for this charter serves as the travel document in the Petitioner’s removal.” The court granted a temporary restraining order on 1 May 2026 and she was released on 6 May 2026, so she was not on the 4 May 2026 flight. The government argued that Palau’s acceptance was a change of circumstances making removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court found that the respondents “do not provide any more details as to when the ‘next scheduled charter to Palau’ is scheduled to occur or whether Respondents have currently valid travel documents to allow Respondents to effect Petitioner’s removal,” and that “There is nothing in the record before the Court to indicate that Respondents have taken any further action since May 4, 2026, including securing currently valid travel documents, to effect the deportation of Petitioner.” The court held that “at this time, the Court is unable to conclude that Respondents have provided sufficient facts to show that removal is likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.” It granted the petition, did not address the petitioner’s other claims, and kept all named respondents in the case so that its order would bind one with authority to act if she were transferred.
Caution The finding is tied to the record before the court “at this time”; the court did not rule on removal to Palau as such and did not reach the petitioner’s other claims. In one section the opinion describes the grant as conditional; its conclusion states that a judgment granting the petition will be entered. That separate judgment was not read. The description of acceptance and manifest placement as the travel document is the government’s statement in a declaration, not a finding of the court.
Redetention Revocation of supervision Order of supervision Informal interview Third-country removal Withholding of removal Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Changed circumstances Travel documents Habeas jurisdiction
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.