District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10125

#1

Jan 12, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11468697 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Zi Qi Huang.(Roth, Stephen) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

#2

Jan 12, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL(CM) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

#3

Jan 13, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell. (JKK) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

#4

Jan 13, 2026

General Order 19-02

#5

Jan 13, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#6

Jan 13, 2026

Copy re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 5 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal mailed to Antone Moniz, Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Michael Krol, and Kristi Noem on 1/13/2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

Jan 13, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jan 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#7

Jan 20, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Jan 20, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#9

Jan 21, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner is given leave to file a reply brief on or before January 28, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/21/2026)

Jan 21, 2026

Order

#10

Jan 26, 2026

Amended Complaint

#11

Jan 27, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On or before February 2, 2026, the respondents may file a response to the petitioner's amended petition, ECF 10, or indicate that they will rely on their response to the original petition. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

Jan 27, 2026

Order

#12

Feb 02, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#13

Feb 06, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Zi Qi Huang, a native and citizen of People’s Republic of China, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 12, 2026. ECF 1 . He filed an amended habeas petition on January 26, 2026, which seeks his immediate release pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act. ECF 10, ¶¶ 2, 5, 15; ECF 10, at 22, ¶ 1; ECF 10, at 37.Huang entered the United States as an 8-year-old immigrant on February 23, 1987 with his biological parents. ECF 10, ¶ 15; ECF 10, at 22, ¶ 4. He then resided in the United States as a lawful permanent resident. ECF 10, ¶ 15; ECF 10, at 22, ¶ 4. The United States is the only country Huang has known, as he has no recollection of China. ECF 10, ¶ 16; ECF 10, at 22-23, ¶¶ 1, 10-11.On April 6, 2004, Huang was convicted in the Waltham District Court for Possession with Intent to Distribute a Class D drug—marijuana—in violation of M.G.L. c. 94C, § 32C(a). ECF 10, ¶ 20; ECF 10, at 23, ¶ 5; ECF 10, at 35. After being placed in removal proceedings, Huang was issued a final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) on April 24, 2009. ECF 10, ¶¶ 21-22; ECF 10, at 23, ¶ 6; ECF 10, at 37-44. On August 24, 2009, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) released Huang on an order of supervision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 after finding that he “was neither a flight risk nor [a] danger to the community.” ECF 10, ¶¶ 3, 24. Since then, Huang has complied with the terms of his release and attended regularly scheduled check-ins with ICE. ECF 10, ¶ 3; ECF 10, at 23, ¶ 8. He is also the primary financial and emotional support for his son, a college-aged U.S. citizen, as well as a source of essential support for his retired parents, who are also U.S. citizens. ECF 10, ¶¶ 16-18; ECF 10, at 24-25.On January 8, 2026, ICE detained Huang when he appeared at the Burlington ICE Field Office for a routine check-in. ECF 10, ¶ 25; ECF 10, at 23, ¶ 8. Huang was presented with a Notice of Revocation of Release explaining that ICE had made “a determination that there are changed circumstances in [Huang’s] case” and “that the purposes of [his] release have been served and it is appropriate to enforce the removal order.” ECF 10, at 44. Huang remains in ICE’s custody at Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. ECF 10, ¶ 4.Huang contends that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment and 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13, two of the implementing regulations for 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). See ECF 10, ¶¶ 36-37. Where, as here, ICE has previously released the petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4, it may revoke that release if (i) the purposes of release have been served; (ii) the petitioner violates any condition of release; (iii) it is appropriate to enforce a removal order or to commence removal proceedings against the petitioner; or (iv) the conduct of the petitioner, or any other circumstance, indicates that release would no longer be appropriate. 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2). Upon revocation, petitioners such as Huang are entitled to adequate notice “of the reasons for revocation” and to an opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation in an “initial informal interview promptly” following his or her detention. Id. § 241.4(l)(1).The respondents argue that Huang is lawfully detained pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 because ICE complied with its regulations by issuing Huang “a written revocation notice signed by an Acting Field Office Director explaining that ICE revoked [his] release . . . on account of ICE’s determination that the purpose of [his] release had been served and therefore it was appropriate to enforce the removal order pending his withholding hearing.” ECF 12, at 3.But ICE’s regulations require it to give “meaningful notice of the basis for its revocation” of Huang’s release. Perez-Escobar v. Moniz, 792 F. Supp. 3d 224, 226 (D. Mass. 2025); accord ECF 9, Nguyen v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-10226-JEK (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2026). Here, as in prior cases decided by this Court, the Notice of Revocation, although using the words “changed circumstances,” does not identify any specific changed circumstances and offers only a conclusory explanation for revoking Huang’s release. See Perez-Escobar, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 226. The Notice merely parrots the language of the regulation; it fails to give Huang notice of any particular facts informing its decision to revoke his release. ICE has, accordingly, failed to comply with § 241.4 and is detaining Huang in violation of federal law and his due process rights. See Rombot v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388 (D. Mass. 2017) (“[W]here an immigration ‘regulation is promulgated to protect a fundamental right derived from the Constitution or a federal statute,’ like the opportunity to be heard, “and [ICE] fails to adhere to it, the challenged [action] is invalid.” (quoting Waldron v. I.N.S., 17 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 1993))).For the foregoing reasons, Huang’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 10, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to release him from ICE’s custody immediately. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report on or before February 9, 2026, confirming that he has been released from custody. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

Feb 06, 2026

Order

#14

Feb 10, 2026

Status Report

#15

Feb 10, 2026

Judgment