Nguyen v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The petition for habeas corpus is denied. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 06/22/17. Mailed to pro se party Quan Hung Nguyen by regular mail. (smnd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS QUAN HUNG NGUYEN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 17-3007-JWL U. S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is detained under an order of removal entered by the immigration court in Kansas City, Missouri. Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody, asserting that his continued detention pending removal has exceeded the six-month period considered presumptively reasonable. The Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 12) on May 18, 2017, finding that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief at that time because there was a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, the Court directed the parties to file status reports with the Court by June 21, 2017. The parties have now filed their status reports. (Docs. 13, 14.) Travel arrangements are confirmed for Petitioner to board a commercial flight to Vietnam on July 10, 2017; and country clearance has been granted and received by the Escorting Officers as well as ticketed itineraries. (Doc. 14–1, at 2.) Because Petitioner’s removal appears imminent, the Court finds that he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief and concludes this matter should be dismissed. However, should Petitioner’s removal not occur on or shortly after July 10, 2017, Petitioner should notify the Court immediately. 1 IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 22nd day of June, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?