That Xiong, a former lawful permanent resident subject to a final removal order based on an aggravated felony conviction, challenged his December 2025 re-detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after the government obtained travel documents from Laos. Xiong had been living under supervised release when ICE revoked his release and re-detained him, citing a 'significant likelihood' of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future due to the availability of Laotian travel documents.
Judge Kistler found that three of Xiong's six claims were moot because the government had already provided the relief he sought. As Kistler wrote, 'the relief that the Court could order on claims two, three, and six has already been provided to Petitioner, and therefore, the claims are denied as moot.' The court noted that while Xiong initially failed to assert any fear of removal to Laos during his December 2025 re-detention interview, he later received a fear interview in February 2026 and was provided with the government's determination in March.
The court expressed concern about the timing of Xiong's fear claims, noting that 'no such fear was expressed by Petitioner or Petitioner's counsel through mid-January 2026 during the first motion for a temporary restraining order.' Kistler observed that 'it appears that at some point after January 12, 2026, Petitioner asserted a fear of removal to Laos,' but emphasized that he had been given proper opportunities to raise such concerns during his initial detention interview.
The case began when ICE re-detained Xiong on December 19, 2025, after receiving Laotian travel documents and issuing a Notice of Imminent Removal. The government followed required procedures under 8 C.F.R. ยง 241.13, including providing an informal interview where Xiong could have expressed fear of removal but did not do so initially. After Xiong filed his habeas petition, the court temporarily restrained his removal multiple times to allow him to pursue immigration relief, with the government agreeing to extensions through April 2026.
Xiong argued that his re-detention violated due process because removal was not reasonably foreseeable and that his removal to Laos, where he allegedly lacks legal status, would violate constitutional protections. The court rejected these arguments, finding that 'there is a significant likelihood that Petitioner may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future where a Laotian Travel Document was issued for Petitioner.' Judge Kistler applied the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge test and concluded that while Xiong had a liberty interest in remaining free from detention, the government's procedures were adequate and its interest in enforcing immigration laws against those convicted of aggravated felonies was substantial.
The court also addressed a separate procedural issue, finding that Xiong's counsel had again submitted 'hallucinated' legal citations apparently generated by artificial intelligence. Kistler noted with 'serious concern' that this was the second time such citations appeared in the case, writing that 'Petitioner's counsel may not continue to use the excuse that he failed to check his briefs before they were filed with the court.' The judge warned that counsel had failed to comply with a January court order regarding the AI citation problem and announced that a separate order to show cause would issue.
In denying the petition, Judge Kistler emphasized that the government had followed its own regulations throughout the process and that Xiong had been provided additional procedural protections beyond what was required. 'This habeas action challenges Petitioner's re-detention, which the Court finds was lawful,' Kistler concluded, noting that Xiong could continue pursuing relief in separate immigration proceedings but that the federal court would not further enjoin his removal pending those proceedings.