# MA

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11335102

## Case

- **Full name:** Tung Cam Ma v. Warden Leonardo Oddo
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 18, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11335102

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
TUNG CAM MA, )
) NO. 3:26-CV-117
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
WARDEN LEONARDO ODDO; , )
)
)
Respondents. )

ORDER
Petitioner Tung Cam Ma, a native of Vietnam, came to the United States in
1979. ECF 7 at 2. In 2001, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed a final order
of removal for Mr. Ma. at 3. Because Vietnam refused to accept Mr. Ma, the
government never deported him. ECF 1 at 7. Since 2007, Mr. Ma has been free from
detention and under an Order of Supervision. ECF 7 at 3.
In 2025, the government decided to try again to deport Mr. Ma to Vietnam.
ICE detained Mr. Ma and revoked his Order of Supervision on July 29, 2025. Mr. Ma
has been detained since then. As of the filing of this conditional writ, Mr. Ma has yet
to be deported. Mr. Ma filed this petition challenging the lawfulness of his continued
detention.
The pending habeas petition presents a so-called “ claim.”
, 533 U.S. 678, 682 (2001). As the Supreme Court held in ,
while the law permits an alien’s detention, it doesn’t do so indefinitely. There is a
“reasonable time” limitation to an alien’s detention. created a
burden-shifting framework for determining whether detention has become
unreasonable. After six months’ detention, a petitioner may show that there is “no
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” at 701. It
is then on the government “to respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.”
If the government cannot demonstrate that removal will happen in the reasonably
foreseeable future, then Section 1231(a)(6) no longer authorizes that petitioner’s
detention. Under this framework, the Court finds that Mr. Ma’s detention is no
longer authorized.
Here, Mr. Ma has met his initial “burden” for the same reason that the
government has failed to meet its: after more than nine months’ detention, Vietnam
refused to issue the necessary travel document and accept Mr. Ma. ECF 14 at 2; ECF
13 at 2. The government concedes that removal to Vietnam is no longer feasible. ECF
13 at 2. But the government continues to detain Mr. Ma, now pivoting to attempt to
deport Mr. Ma to China. at 3.
The government has failed to show why removal to China is significantly likely
in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government rests its argument (and
burden) on “the reasons set forth in [its] response (Doc. No. 7) and [its] current efforts
to remove [Mr. Ma] (Ex. 1 ¶¶ 1–5).” Taking these in turn, the Court finds that
neither sufficiently rebuts Mr. Ma’s showing that his removal isn’t likely to happen
anytime soon.
First, the government’s original response brief (ECF 7) does not rebut Mr. Ma’s
showing. In March, the government assured the Court that ICE is working on Mr.
Ma’s deportation to Vietnam and that “there is a significant likelihood of his removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future.” ECF 7 at 9–10. In April, an important change
in fact happened—ICE is no longer trying to deport Mr. Ma to Vietnam because
Vietnam won’t accept him. ECF 13-1 at 2. So the “reasons set forth in [the
government’s] response” no longer apply, yet the government urges the Court to rely
on its response now. That’s not good enough to rebut Mr. Ma’s showing under
. The Court notes that, unlike before, the government was unable to
represent in its latest filing that “there is a significant likelihood of his removal in
the reasonably foreseeable future.”
Second, the government argues that its attached exhibit should satisfy the
framework. It doesn’t. The attached exhibit is the declaration of an ICE
deportation officer assigned to Mr. Ma’s case. There, she tells the Court about the
paperwork ordered from Mr. Ma and from his “parents [sic] A files” “to determine if
his father was born in China.” at 2–3. The Court accepts as true that ICE is
attempting to gather paperwork to effectuate Mr. Ma’s removal to China. But that
doesn’t demonstrate that China is likely to accept Mr. Ma and ICE will likely deport
him in the reasonably foreseeable future. And the Court has concerns that this will
drag on because the government is attempting to deport Mr. Ma, not to his home
country of Vietnam, but to China, where he has, at most, a tenuous connection.1
*****
In sum, the government hasn’t sufficiently rebutted Mr. Ma’s showing that his
removal isn’t likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government has had a
final order of removal for Mr. Ma since 2001, has had an order of supervision on Mr.
Ma since 2007, has held him in detention since July 2025, and has now failed to
deport Mr. Ma to Vietnam on two separate occasions.
The Court HEREBY GRANTS Mr. Ma’s writ, ordering his immediate release
from detention because Section 1231(a)(6) no longer authorizes his detention. To be
clear, this order is without prejudice to the government re-detaining Mr. Ma under

1 According to Mr. Ma, he has never lived in China and has lived in the United States
since the age of two, when his parents emigrated from Vietnam. ECF 14 at 2. Mr.
Ma’s father was an orphan living on the streets of Vietnam. Mr. Ma’s father was
adopted by Chinese refugee farmers who had fled to Vietnam. That’s not to say
that the government cannot deport Mr. Ma to China under Section 1231(b)(1)(C). But
it informs the Court’s analysis on whether Mr. Ma’s removal is significantly likely to
happen in the reasonably foreseeable future to a country where Mr. Ma’s ties are
sparse at best.
Section 1231(a)(6) once his removal has been approved by China and removal is
imminent. In the interim, Mr. Ma will be subject to supervision under Section
1231(a)(3) and must still comply with all conditions of supervision. It is so ordered.2

DATED this 18th day of May, 2026.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan
United States District Judge

2 In her declaration, the ICE officer contends that Mr. Ma “has refused to cooperate
in the completion of the [travel document] application” to China. ECF 13-1 at 2. Mr.
Ma, for his part, responds that ICE is threatening either criminal prosecution or “the
hole” on Mr. Ma “if he refuses to sign documents manufacturing a Chinese
citizenship.” ECF 14 at 1. The Court doesn’t need to resolve this dispute. True, Mr.
Ma may not improperly create roadblocks to his own removal and then claim that his
detention is unreasonably prolonged.
, 965 F.3d 203, 212 (3d Cir. 2020). But this doesn’t foreclose relief here.
Rather, upon release, Mr. Ma would be subject to conditions of supervision under
Section 1231(a)(3), including requirements that he must complete necessary
documentation and cooperate with the government. § 1231(a)(3)(C).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11335102. Public record. Not legal advice.