A federal appeals court will decide whether At “Ricky” Chandee, a Minnesota man detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, may keep challenging a deportation order that stems from an assault case more than three decades old.

Chandee, 52, is a refugee from Laos who has lived in the United States since childhood and has worked for the City of Minneapolis as an engineering technician for 27 years, according to CBS Minnesota. He was scheduled to be deported on May 5, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit paused his removal for two weeks after his attorneys sought review of the deportation order.

The stay followed an emergency action by Minnesota’s Board of Pardons. On May 4, the board unanimously granted Chandee a pardon tied to the early-1990s assault conviction that had been central to his immigration case. The board is made up of Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. Walz convened the emergency meeting because the board’s next regular session was not scheduled until June, according to CBS Minnesota’s account of the proceeding.

The immediate issue now is whether the federal appeal can proceed. CBS Minnesota reported Monday that the federal government asked Thursday for Chandee’s appeal to be dismissed. His attorney has until May 28 to respond, though the court can act before then. Chandee’s attorney told the station he remains hopeful the appeals court will extend the pause on deportation while the appeal continues.

The case has drawn attention in Minnesota because Chandee’s criminal record is old and because his supporters say he rebuilt his life after serving his sentence. Local reporting said he was convicted of second-degree assault when he was 18, served his sentence and paid restitution. Court records referenced in earlier proceedings identify him as At Xayasounethone, also known as At Chandee, and say he entered the United States in 1980 as a refugee before later being ordered deported to Laos. The Eighth Circuit noted in a 2019 decision that he had not been deported for many years because Laos had been unwilling to accept deportees like him.

That history left Chandee under immigration supervision rather than removed from the country. CBS Minnesota reported that he has had no convictions since the early-1990s case. His detention came during Operation Metro Surge, a Minnesota immigration enforcement push that has generated court fights, protests and scrutiny over detention conditions and access to counsel.

State officials framed the pardon as a way to address a conviction they said no longer reflected Chandee’s life or public safety risk. After the pardon was granted, Minnesota officials said the clemency action could remove the federal government’s legal basis for deportation. Immigration law, however, can turn on technical questions about whether a pardon eliminates deportability in a particular case, whether a removal order remains final and whether a court has jurisdiction to reopen or review prior immigration decisions.

The federal government has not publicly detailed in the CBS report the full legal basis for seeking dismissal of Chandee’s appeal. In immigration litigation, dismissal motions can raise issues such as jurisdiction, timeliness, exhaustion of administrative remedies or whether the court can review the type of agency decision being challenged. Chandee’s attorneys are seeking to keep the case alive long enough for the appeals court to consider whether the pardon changes the removal calculus.

The dispute also escalated after the Department of Homeland Security edited a public statement about Chandee. CBS Minnesota reported on May 11 that DHS had removed a sentence from an online press release that accused Chandee of additional 2008 felony convictions. Chandee’s attorney denied that claim, and CBS Minnesota said it could not find records of the alleged 2008 convictions in Minnesota’s online court database or in federal court records. The edited DHS release no longer included the 2008 allegation, according to the station.

That episode sharpened the public dispute between Minnesota officials and federal immigration authorities. DHS criticized the state pardon, while Chandee’s supporters argued that the federal government was relying on an old case against a longtime Minnesota resident who had worked steadily and remained under supervision for decades. The legal fight, however, will be decided by the appeals court rather than by the public debate around the pardon.

The Eighth Circuit has previously addressed Chandee’s immigration history. In a 2019 decision, the court dismissed a petition for review related to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ refusal to reopen his deportation proceedings on its own authority. The court said there was no meaningful standard for reviewing that discretionary refusal, leaving the underlying removal order in place. The current appeal arises in a different posture because of the new state pardon and the latest effort to stop deportation.

Chandee’s case is unfolding during a period of heightened immigration enforcement in Minnesota. The Associated Press has reported on separate litigation over access to legal counsel at an ICE facility in the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, as well as broader concerns raised by advocates and members of Congress about conditions, attorney access and the transfer of detainees out of state. Those issues are distinct from Chandee’s appeal, but they form part of the enforcement environment in which his case has become prominent.

If the Eighth Circuit dismisses the appeal, Chandee could lose one of his remaining avenues to delay or challenge removal. If the court allows the case to continue or extends the stay, his attorneys would gain more time to argue that the Minnesota pardon changes his immigration status or undermines the basis for deportation. For now, Chandee remains in ICE custody while the appeals court considers the government’s request and his pending response deadline.