Nguyen v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
QUAN HUNG NGUYEN,
CASE NO. 17-3007-JWL
U. S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
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,
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.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus
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
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?