District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10510

#1

Feb 02, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11517059 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by KCHANG PEN. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Affidavit Petitioner Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit Attorney Morrison Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit Notice to Removable Alien, # 6 Exhibit NTA, # 7 Exhibit Post Order Release, # 8 Exhibit 2001 OSUP, # 9 Exhibit 2005 OSUP, # 10 Exhibit Letters of Support)(Madan, Alysia) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#2

Feb 02, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns 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 Jessica D. Hedges. (CEH) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#3

Feb 02, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. (JAM) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#4

Feb 02, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 3 Order mailed to David Wesling, Michael Krol, Kristi L Noem and Todd M Lyons on 2/2/2026. (JAM) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

Copy Mailed

Feb 02, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Feb 05, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Feb 09, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#7

Feb 09, 2026

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

#8

Feb 10, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 7 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.In 1998, an Immigration Judge ordered petitioner Kchang Pen, who had recently been convicted by a jury of larceny and sentenced to two and a half years in prison, removed to Cambodia. The order became final on January 16, 2001. In May of 2001, the former Immigration Naturalization Service released Pen on an Order of Supervised Release. Pen remained on supervised release for the next fifteen years, until February 2, 2026, when ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officers detained him and revoked his Order of Supervised Release. Limited in its jurisdiction, the court asks the petitioner to show cause no later than February 20, 2026, why, under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 (2001), there is not a significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. (RGS, law3) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#9

Feb 10, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered finding as moot 6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (RGS, law3) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

Feb 10, 2026

Order

Feb 10, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#10

Feb 20, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#11

Feb 23, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered - The court orders the government to file a brief (up to five pages) by Friday, February 27, 2026, addressing the applicability of 8 C.F.R. sect. 241.13 in this case. (MZ) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Order

#12

Feb 26, 2026

Response to Court Order

#13

Feb 27, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Kchang Pen was released under an Order of Supervised Release in May of 2001 because the Government was unable to remove petitioner. Dkt # 1-7; see also Resp'ts Reply [Dkt # 12] at 2-3 (conceding that "the inability to remove Petitioner at that time" was at least one of the reasons for his relief, if not the only). His release (and the subsequent revocation of that release) accordingly is governed by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13.Section 241.13 authorizes ICE "to re-detain a noncitizen like [petitioner] who has been granted supervised release" when there has been "(1) an individualized determination (2) by ICE that, (3) based on changed circumstances, (4) removal has become significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future." Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 619-620 (1st Cir. 2023), citing § 241.13(i)(2). Here, the only changed circumstance ICE identifies is the fact that "ICE is seeking a travel document from Cambodia," Resp'ts Opp'n [Dkt # 7] at 2; Resp'ts Reply at 4. ICE does not explain why it expects to receive a favorable response from the Cambodian government, nor does it provide any timeline indicating that the issuance of a travel document will occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.The court doubts that the mere submission of a request for travel documents to a foreign government satisfies the concrete requirements of § 241.13(i)(2). Respondents therefore are ordered to file a reply of no more than seven (7) pages elaborating on the factual basis for their belief that the Cambodian government will now, twenty-five years later, issue the requested travel documents and that those travel documents, even if issued, will come in the reasonably foreseeable future. This brief is due no later than Friday, March 6, 2026. (RGS, law3) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb 27, 2026

Order

#14

Mar 06, 2026

Response to Court Order

#15

Mar 09, 2026

Leave to File Document

#16

Mar 09, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 15 Motion for Leave to File Document. (RGS, law3) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

#17

Mar 09, 2026

Memorandum of Law

Mar 09, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

#18

Mar 10, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.Petitioner Kchang Pen entered the United States as a refugee when he was just five years old. Now 50 years old, with a U.S. citizen fiancee and two U.S. citizen children, he faces the threat of removal based on a 1998 removal order for which he has been on supervised release for nearly twenty-five years. In this petition, he challenges the legality of his re-detention, arguing that the government violated its own regulations in revoking his Order of Supervision.Unlike the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the district court's jurisdiction extends only to the due process of petitioner's detention. Although the court is sympathetic to the situation in which petitioner now finds himself and encourages the government to consider him for a discretionary deferral of removal, the court cannot say that his re-detention is unlawful under the circumstances presented here. Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), the government may only revoke petitioner's supervised release if ICE determines that "there is a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future." Respondents have shown that ICE made such a determination here. They offer evidence that, at the time of petitioner's re-detention, ICE expected that Cambodia would issue travel documents to petitioner within a set timeline (thirty days after his nationality interview, which is currently scheduled for March 12) and that his removal would occur within two months thereafter.It is no answer to point out that respondents did not submit their request for travel documents to Cambodia until after petitioner was detained. The question is whether, at the time of re-detention, ICE had made a determination that there was a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. That ICE intended to file a request for travel documents shortly after detaining petitioner and expected this later-filed request to be resolved in its favor within a set timeline indicates that it had.(Respondents indicate that they only waited to file the request for travel documents until after petitioner was detained in order to schedule and ensure his presence for a nationality interview. Petitioner challenges whether detention is, in fact, necessary for a nationality interview to occur, but this is irrelevant. The question before the court is not whether an alternative to re-detention exists but instead whether ICE complied with its regulations and determined there was a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.)It is also no answer to say that ICE's expectations as to when a decision will issue and what that decision will be may, in the end, prove false. By its plain text, all the regulation requires is that ICE determine that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. It does not authorize the court to delve into the merits of that determination. (RGS, law3) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

#19

Mar 10, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Mar 10, 2026

Order

#20

Mar 24, 2026

Set Aside Judgment

#21

Mar 24, 2026

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 20 Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Based on counsel's representation of newly discovered evidence (the vacatur of petitioner's sole criminal conviction) the court will order that petitioner not be removed from the District of Massachusetts or the territorial jurisdiction of the United States for ten (10) business days to permit the government to respond to the motion for relief from final judgment and entry of a stay. The government will have seven (7) business days to file its response. Business days will be calculated from the date of entry of this order. SO ORDERED. (TRM) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#22

Mar 24, 2026

First Opposition re 20 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment filed by Michael Krol, Todd Lyons, Kristi L. Noem, David Wesling. (McMahon, Erica) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

Mar 24, 2026

Order on Motion to Set Aside Judgment

Mar 26, 2026

Order

#24

Mar 30, 2026

Stipulation of Dismissal