Truong Van Hung Adelanto Detention Facility i FEB 23 10250 Rancho rd i Adelanto, CA. 92301 CENTRAL A# 71-017-749 . Pro Se Petitioner UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 5:26-cv-00851-SVW-AGR Truong Van Hung Pro Se Petitioner MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING V. ORDER Warden-Facility Administrator Adelanto Ice Processing Center Thomas P. Giles, Director of Los Angeles Field Office, Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, In their official capacities, Respondents
1. Respondents have unlawfully held Pro Se Petitioner Truong Van Hung in immigration detention since October 15, 2025, even though the federal Government has no significant likelihood of removing him from the United States. 2. | was held at the Department of Homeland Security’s (‘DHS’) Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE) Los Angeles Field Office in Los Angeles On October 15, 2025 and was transferred that same morning to Adelanto Ice Processing Center in Adelanto, CA. 3. Back in 1998, | was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge in Lancaster, CA. due to prior 1996 charge that | was committed and found guilty for by the court at the time. Vietnam was designated as the country of my removal. 4. | has previously been detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(“ICE”) and its predecessor Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) since my initial removal order. 5. Over 25+ years, INS and ICE have not been able to procure travel documents for My repatriation to Vietnam. 6. | was last released on an Order of Supervision (“OSUP”) for almost 26 years ago, and through all those time | have followed all the rules that their had asked of me, and not violated any terms of my OSUP. 7. Most recently, the government revoked My release on OSUP and detained Me for the purpose of removing. 8. ICE has not shown that travel document for Vietnam has been issued. ICE has not shown that | am a risk of flight or a danger to the community prior to additional detainment. 9. ICE’s decision to re-detain a non-citizen like me who has been granted supervised on (OSUP) upon my release is governed by ICE’s own regulation requiring an individualized determination by ICE that based on changed circumstances, removal has become significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 619-20 (1° Cir. 2023)(citing 8 C..R. § 241.13(i)(2)).
10. The plain language of the regulation however, does not allow a court in the first instance to make the required individualized finding. To the extent ICE claims that it made such a determination, the court should review that claim in light of the regulations instructing ICE on how it should make such a determination. “Kong, 62 f.4th at 620 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(f, ()(2). 11. ICE has not shown that | was not in compliance with my current OSUP for all those 24+ years. 12. Since my released, and on an order of supervision for 25+ years. During that time, | lived my life as a law-abiding citizen. | has worked as a Nail Technician in a lot of popular Nail Salon around United States, and | declare tax every year since my release. | have fully cooperate whatever requires of me and consistently checked in whenever required on the followed due date and never miss, not even once. 13. Since my released, | has worked steadily in the cosmetics industry. 14. Since my last release over two decade ago, ICE has failed to procure travel documents from the Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or effect my removal to Vietnam. 15. On October 15, 2025, | was arrested during my check-in reported to the INS and was held in custody by ICE, and have been detain and transfer to Adalento facilities till now. 16. | am proceeded to initiate the process of requesting a Vietnamese passport, even though ICE has not indicated that the Government of Vietnam had found my eligible for repatriation. 17. As part of the intensive monitoring, | was instructed to meet with an ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer on yearly basic before re-detain. 18. At this time, there is still no indication that travel documents to Vietnam has been issued or that the Government of Vietnam has found my eligible for repatriation. 19. On the same day of my detention, ICE issued a notice of my revocation of release. ICE indicated that my case is under current review by the Government of Vietnam for the
Issuance of a travel document. However, ICE did no indicate that the Government of Vietnam has found My eligible for repatriation. 20. | had been in custody over two months and nobody come to tell me what my outcome gonna be. 21. | am currently detain at Adelanto Ice Processing Center in Adelanto California since November 12, 2025. In the control and custody of Respondent D. Marin- Warden-Facility Administrator. Simultaneously with this document, Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because is is almost certain to prevail on all of his claims, he respectfully asks this Court to order his immediate release from custody while this case is litigated. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v Labrador, 122 F.4th 825, 843-44 (9" Cir. 2024) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cotrell, 632 F.3d 1127,1131 (9" Cir. 2011)). “Alternatively, a preliminary injunction may issue where serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff's favor if the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the publi844c interest.” Id. at 844 (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135). The standards for granting a temporary restraining order are the same as the standards for granting a preliminary injunction. See O.M. v. Nat'l Women’s Soccer League, LLC, 541 F Supp. 3D 1171, 1177 (D. Or. 2021). First, Petitioner is almost certain to succeed on the merits of his habeas petition for the reasons set forth in his petition.
Second, illegal confinement is quintessentially irreparable harm, because “the deprivation of Constitutional Rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Melanadres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9" Cir. 2012). Third and finally, when the government is a party, as it is here, “the balance of equities and public interest factors merge.” Pimentel Estrada v. Barr, 464 F. Supp. 3D 1225, 1237 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (citing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9" Cir. 2014)). The risk of harm to Petitioner far outweighs the government's interest in illegally detaining him, for it is “always in the public’s interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Truong Van Hung Adelanto Detention Facility i FEB 23 10250 Rancho rd i Adelanto, CA. 92301 CENTRAL A# 71-017-749 . Pro Se Petitioner UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 5:26-cv-00851-SVW-AGR Truong Van Hung Pro Se Petitioner MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING V. ORDER Warden-Facility Administrator Adelanto Ice Processing Center Thomas P. Giles, Director of Los Angeles Field Office, Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, In their official capacities, Respondents
1. Respondents have unlawfully held Pro Se Petitioner Truong Van Hung in immigration detention since October 15, 2025, even though the federal Government has no significant likelihood of removing him from the United States. 2. | was held at the Department of Homeland Security’s (‘DHS’) Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE) Los Angeles Field Office in Los Angeles On October 15, 2025 and was transferred that same morning to Adelanto Ice Processing Center in Adelanto, CA. 3. Back in 1998, | was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge in Lancaster, CA. due to prior 1996 charge that | was committed and found guilty for by the court at the time. Vietnam was designated as the country of my removal. 4. | has previously been detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(“ICE”) and its predecessor Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) since my initial removal order. 5. Over 25+ years, INS and ICE have not been able to procure travel documents for My repatriation to Vietnam. 6. | was last released on an Order of Supervision (“OSUP”) for almost 26 years ago, and through all those time | have followed all the rules that their had asked of me, and not violated any terms of my OSUP. 7. Most recently, the government revoked My release on OSUP and detained Me for the purpose of removing. 8. ICE has not shown that travel document for Vietnam has been issued. ICE has not shown that | am a risk of flight or a danger to the community prior to additional detainment. 9. ICE’s decision to re-detain a non-citizen like me who has been granted supervised on (OSUP) upon my release is governed by ICE’s own regulation requiring an individualized determination by ICE that based on changed circumstances, removal has become significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 619-20 (1° Cir. 2023)(citing 8 C..R. § 241.13(i)(2)).
10. The plain language of the regulation however, does not allow a court in the first instance to make the required individualized finding. To the extent ICE claims that it made such a determination, the court should review that claim in light of the regulations instructing ICE on how it should make such a determination. “Kong, 62 f.4th at 620 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(f, ()(2). 11. ICE has not shown that | was not in compliance with my current OSUP for all those 24+ years. 12. Since my released, and on an order of supervision for 25+ years. During that time, | lived my life as a law-abiding citizen. | has worked as a Nail Technician in a lot of popular Nail Salon around United States, and | declare tax every year since my release. | have fully cooperate whatever requires of me and consistently checked in whenever required on the followed due date and never miss, not even once. 13. Since my released, | has worked steadily in the cosmetics industry. 14. Since my last release over two decade ago, ICE has failed to procure travel documents from the Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or effect my removal to Vietnam. 15. On October 15, 2025, | was arrested during my check-in reported to the INS and was held in custody by ICE, and have been detain and transfer to Adalento facilities till now. 16. | am proceeded to initiate the process of requesting a Vietnamese passport, even though ICE has not indicated that the Government of Vietnam had found my eligible for repatriation. 17. As part of the intensive monitoring, | was instructed to meet with an ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer on yearly basic before re-detain. 18. At this time, there is still no indication that travel documents to Vietnam has been issued or that the Government of Vietnam has found my eligible for repatriation. 19. On the same day of my detention, ICE issued a notice of my revocation of release. ICE indicated that my case is under current review by the Government of Vietnam for the
Issuance of a travel document. However, ICE did no indicate that the Government of Vietnam has found My eligible for repatriation. 20. | had been in custody over two months and nobody come to tell me what my outcome gonna be. 21. | am currently detain at Adelanto Ice Processing Center in Adelanto California since November 12, 2025. In the control and custody of Respondent D. Marin- Warden-Facility Administrator. Simultaneously with this document, Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because is is almost certain to prevail on all of his claims, he respectfully asks this Court to order his immediate release from custody while this case is litigated. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v Labrador, 122 F.4th 825, 843-44 (9" Cir. 2024) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cotrell, 632 F.3d 1127,1131 (9" Cir. 2011)). “Alternatively, a preliminary injunction may issue where serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff's favor if the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the publi844c interest.” Id. at 844 (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135). The standards for granting a temporary restraining order are the same as the standards for granting a preliminary injunction. See O.M. v. Nat'l Women’s Soccer League, LLC, 541 F Supp. 3D 1171, 1177 (D. Or. 2021). First, Petitioner is almost certain to succeed on the merits of his habeas petition for the reasons set forth in his petition.
Second, illegal confinement is quintessentially irreparable harm, because “the deprivation of Constitutional Rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Melanadres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9" Cir. 2012). Third and finally, when the government is a party, as it is here, “the balance of equities and public interest factors merge.” Pimentel Estrada v. Barr, 464 F. Supp. 3D 1225, 1237 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (citing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9" Cir. 2014)). The risk of harm to Petitioner far outweighs the government's interest in illegally detaining him, for it is “always in the public’s interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002.
Therefore, the Court should grant a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, and order Petitioner’s immediate release from custody. Additionally, the second claim in Petitioner’s petition concerns potential deportation to a third country, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court order the government not to remove Petitioner to a third country until the Court resolves the pending petition.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: 02/14/2026 By: Truong Van Hung Petitioner Pro Se
VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2242 | Pro Se Truong Van Hung the Petitioner, Submitting this verification on my behalf. | hereby verify that the factual statements made in the foregoing First Amended Petitioner for the Motion of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining order are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 02/14/2026
Respectfully submitted,
Pro Se_ Petitioner Truong Van Hung A# 71-017-749 Date: 02/14/2026
Truong Van Hung (Name of alien(s) in proceedings) A# 71-017-749 (A-Number of alien(s) in proceedings)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On 02/14/2026 I Truong Van Hung (date) (printed name of person signing below)
served a copy of this MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (type of document) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT and any attached pages to CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (name of the party served)
at the following address: 255 East Temple Street, Suite. TS-134 Los Angeles, California. 90012 (address of party served)
by: US First Class Mail (method of service-for example, overnight courier, hand delivery, first class mail, ICE OPLA e Service
yc 02/14/2026 (signatute) (date) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 255 East Temple Street, Suite. TS-134 Los Angeles, California. 90012
Truong Van Hung (Name of alien(s) in proceedings) A# 71-017-749 (A-Number of alien(s) in proceedings)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On 02/14/2026 I, Truong Van Hung (date) (printed name of person signing below)
served a copy of this MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (type of document)
and any attached pages to Thomas P. Giles, Director of Los Angeles Field Office (name of the party served)
at the following address: 300 N. Los Angeles st Los Angeles, CA 90012-3145 (address of party served)
by: ee (method of service-for example, overnight courier, hand delivery, first class mail, ICE OPLA e Service
ull: 02/14/2026 (signature) (date) Thomas P. Giles, Director of Los Angeles Field Office 300 N. Los Angeles st Los Angeles, CA 90012-3145
Truong Van Hung (Name of alien(s) in proceedings) A# 71-017-749 (A-Number of alien(s) in proceedings)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On, 02/14/2026 I, Truong Van Hung (date) (printed name of person signing below)
served a copy of this MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ___ ORDER (type of document)
and any attached pages to U.S. Department Homeland Security (name of the party served)
at the following address: 801 | Street N.W. Ste#900 Washington DC, 20536 (address of party served)
by: ee (method of service-for example, overnight courier, hand delivery, first class mail, ICE OPLA e Service
(iL 2 02/14/2026 (signature (date) U.S Department Homeland Security 801 | Street N.W. Ste#900 Washington DC, 20536
| Verse eo thalen eee Pena Ae Oc Wee
tase Pawels ey Aaddhaats , UA: 92001
ee rita els “Daltel □□□□□ oN (eee er 4 Qolidaert seal Wore REN lates | Cas. “\ Ne Q ices: vente
| Las Ave Qk. Goole —