The petitioner was born in Vietnam in 1970 to a United States citizen father and came to the United States in May 1990 as a lawful permanent resident under the Amerasian Homecoming Act. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Vietnam on 11 June 2009, and he was released on an order of supervision in August 2009 “because he could not be removed.” He was detained at his yearly check-in on 22 August 2025. The court recorded that the record “does not reflect whether or when any travel document request was submitted to Vietnam.” It was undisputed that he had been held longer than six months. The government relied on Vietnam’s agreement in February 2025 to accelerate travel document issuance and on media reports of hundreds of removals to Vietnam, but offered no information on removals of people who arrived before 1995 except to acknowledge “additional hurdles.” The court held that “The assertion that some Vietnamese nationals have been removed to Vietnam offers no evidence that Petitioner, or others in similar circumstances, is likely to be removed in the foreseeable future,” and that the government “has not obtained travel documents for Petitioner, does not know when such documents might issue, and does not know if they will issue at all.” The court denied without prejudice his request for an order against third-country removal because “He does not claim that he is likely to be subject to such removal.” It did not reach his claims that the re-detention violated procedural due process and ICE regulations, and it ruled before his reply was due, finding habeas relief warranted on the government’s return.
Caution A district court decision by a magistrate judge sitting with the parties’ consent, binding only on the parties. The petitioner obtained release only: the request for protection against third-country removal was denied without prejudice, so the order gives no protection against removal to a third country. Not to be confused with Nguyen v. Bondi (C25-2674-SKV, slug van-nguyen-v-bondi), already in the register, which concerns a different petitioner.
Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Redetention Travel documents Third-country removal Ripeness
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 A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.