In recent months, ICE has significantly increased enforcement actions against long-term refugees from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam—many of whom entered the United States as children, adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status decades ago, and completed criminal sentences long ago.

These enforcement actions have resulted in widespread family separation, renewed trauma for refugee communities, and an increase in prolonged civil immigration detention despite longstanding barriers to repatriation.

In recent months, ICE has expanded arrests and detentions of Southeast Asian refugees with final orders of removal, particularly those with felony convictions classified as aggravated felonies under immigration law. Many of the individuals targeted arrived in the United States during the post-Vietnam War refugee resettlement era and have lived in the U.S. for decades.

Detentions have disproportionately affected refugee communities in California, Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, where large Southeast Asian populations reside. In many cases, ICE has detained individuals despite a historically low likelihood that their countries of origin will issue travel documents, resulting in prolonged and often unlawful detention. ICE has even re-detained individuals that were previously released due to no likelihood of removal.

Laos has never maintained a formal repatriation agreement with the United States and has historically issued travel documents only rarely. This has been particularly true for ethnic minorities, including Hmong refugees, many of whom fled Laos after assisting U.S. forces during the Vietnam War.

Although diplomatic pressure—including visa sanctions and broader travel restrictions—has resulted in limited cooperation since mid-2025, deportations to Laos remain inconsistent and unpredictable. In practice, ICE often relies on generalized assertions of diplomatic progress rather than individualized evidence that travel documents will issue in a particular case. As a result, an estimated 4,800 individuals with final removal orders to Laos remain in prolonged legal limbo.

Vietnam’s 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States historically limited removals of individuals who entered the U.S. before July 12, 1995. While DHS announced policy changes in 2020 expanding removal efforts, the MOU has not been formally rescinded. Implementation remains inconsistent, and many pre-1995 arrivals remain effectively non-removable in practice, particularly in the absence of Vietnamese travel documents.

Cambodia operates under a 2002 repatriation agreement with the United States but applies it selectively. Travel document issuance is often delayed or denied, especially for individuals with long-standing U.S. residence and family ties. These delays frequently undermine ICE’s ability to demonstrate foreseeable removal in detention litigation.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), individuals with final orders of removal are subject to a 90-day “removal period” during which detention is mandatory. After that period, detention is authorized but constitutionally limited.

In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court held that indefinite post-removal-order detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. While the Court identified six months as a “presumptively reasonable” period of detention, continued detention beyond that point is lawful only if the government can demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

There is no automatic “180-day rule.” Instead, courts require case-specific evidence that removal is realistically attainable. Where a country of origin has a history of refusing or delaying travel documents—as is common with Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam—continued detention often violates due process.

If ICE has previously released an individual after determining that removal was not foreseeable, subsequent re-detention generally requires materially changed circumstances. Courts have repeatedly held that renewed enforcement priorities or speculative diplomatic negotiations, without concrete evidence of imminent repatriation, are insufficient to justify re-detention under Zadvydas.

A habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may be filed in federal district court to challenge prolonged immigration detention. The petition must be filed in the district where the individual is physically detained and should name the immediate custodian as respondent.

Habeas relief is generally appropriate after six months of post-removal-order detention where ICE cannot show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The detainee must present “good reason” to believe removal is unlikely; the burden then shifts to the government to rebut that showing with specific, individualized evidence.

While ICE custody reviews should typically be requested first, exhaustion of administrative remedies is prudential rather than jurisdictional. Courts routinely excuse exhaustion where detention is prolonged and removal barriers are well-documented. Successful habeas litigation may result in release under supervision, reporting conditions, or, in some cases, a bond hearing.

In addition to detention challenges, some refugees in removal proceedings may seek relief through re-adjustment of status under INA § 209. This discretionary form of relief allows certain refugees to re-apply for adjustment of status under refugee provisions, potentially overcoming criminal grounds of removability.

To qualify for re-adjustment under INA § 209, the individual must:

• Have been admitted to the U.S. as a refugee;
• Have been physically present in the U.S. for at least one year;
• Not have firmly resettled in another country; and
• Be admissible, or eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility.

INA § 209(c) authorizes broad waivers of many criminal grounds of inadmissibility for humanitarian purposes, family unity, or when otherwise in the public interest. Even where a waiver is legally available, adjudicators retain broad discretion, and adverse factors such as serious violence or repeated offenses may still result in denial.

Eligible Individuals:Refugees present in the U.S. for 1+ year; no firm resettlement; admissible or waivable grounds

Generally Waivable Crimes: Crimes involving moral turpitude; multiple convictions; prostitution-related offenses; simple controlled substance possession (non-trafficking); simple marijuana possession ?30g

Generally Not Waivable: Controlled substance trafficking; national security grounds; genocide, torture, extrajudicial killing; severe violent aggravated felonies (e.g., murder, rape, child sexual abuse)

Forms Required: Form I-485 (Adjustment of Status); Form I-602 (Waiver of Inadmissibility)

Process Notes: May be filed after one year; can be raised in removal proceedings; adjudication timelines vary

Strong evidentiary submissions—documenting rehabilitation, family ties, community service, and humanitarian equities—are essential to a successful § 209 application.

As diplomatic relationships and enforcement priorities continue to shift, Southeast Asian refugees with old criminal convictions remain at heightened risk of prolonged detention despite longstanding repatriation barriers. Practitioners should aggressively litigate Zadvydas claims, demand individualized evidence of foreseeable removal, and evaluate re-adjustment under INA § 209 early in removal proceedings.

You may also want to review your prior convictions with an experienced post-conviction attorney, to determine if there is a path to vacate or challenge your conviction.  You could even get a copy of our book, Navigating Post-Conviction Relief, available now on Amazon.