The court also ruled that the government violated federal regulations by revoking Trieu’s supervised release without providing notice, an informal interview, or an opportunity to be heard.
Trieu, who immigrated to the United States in 1991, was ordered removed following a 2004 conviction but was released on an order of supervision because his removal to Vietnam was impracticable. He remained in the community for over 20 years, complying with all conditions and maintaining close family ties in the United States.
On March 5, 2026, immigration authorities arrested Trieu outside his home in Fountain Valley, California, and transferred him to the Adelanto Detention Facility. The government did not provide him with notice of the revocation or an opportunity to contest the decision prior to his detention.
Trieu argued that his re-detention violated immigration laws and due process because the government failed to demonstrate a significant likelihood of his removal to Vietnam in the reasonably foreseeable future. He also contended that the failure to follow required revocation procedures under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 rendered his detention unlawful.
The court agreed, noting that while the United States and Vietnam reached a 2020 agreement allowing for the consideration of some pre-1995 Vietnamese immigrants for removal, such removals remain rare. The government provided no evidence that Vietnam was likely to accept Trieu or that it had even requested travel documents for him.
The magistrate judge held that under the burden-shifting framework established by Zadvydas v. Davis, the government must rebut a noncitizen’s showing that removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Because Trieu had already been released on supervision after demonstrating that removal was unlikely, the burden shifted to the government to prove changed circumstances justified re-detention.
The court found the government failed to meet this burden, citing low repatriation rates and the lack of specific evidence regarding Trieu’s individual case. The judge further ruled that the government’s failure to provide the notice and interview required by regulation deprived Trieu of due process and warranted immediate release.
The court ordered Trieu’s immediate release subject to the conditions of his prior order of supervision. It also prohibited the government from re-detaining him unless it obtains a travel document for his removal and provides him with adequate notice, an interview, and an opportunity to be heard.