District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-11503

#1

May 26, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11029735 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Minh Hoang Duong. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form Category Form)(Stylianos, Thomas) (Entered: 05/26/2025)

#2

May 27, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Allison D. Burroughs 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. (JAM) (Entered: 05/27/2025)

#3

May 27, 2025

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (NMC) (Entered: 05/27/2025)

#4

May 27, 2025

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. SERVICE ORDER re 2241 Petition. Order entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2243 governing Section 2241 cases for service on respondents. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than 14 days from receipt of this order. (CAM) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/27/2025: # 1 Appendix - SEALED) (CAM). (Entered: 05/27/2025)

May 27, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jun 10, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Michael P. Sady on behalf of Brian H. Gillen, Patricia Hyde (Sady, Michael) (Entered: 06/10/2025)

#6

Jun 10, 2025

Respondent's ANSWER to Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Brian H. Gillen, Patricia Hyde. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sady, Michael) (Entered: 06/10/2025)

Sep 22, 2025

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#8

Sep 26, 2025

Status Report

#9

Oct 01, 2025

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On May 22, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested and detained Petitioner, a noncitizen subject to a final order of removal, to effectuate his removal from the United States. Petitioner now seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [ECF No. 1 ], raising two arguments. First, he argues that his removal to Vietnam would violate the United States’ treaty obligations, statutes, and practice on non-refoulment. [ECF No. 1 at 2]. Second, he argues that his 2010 removal hearing occurred at a time when the United States did not have an agreement with Vietnam that would allow for his repatriation, so he did not have incentive to raise a defense, and he did not, in fact, raise a defense. [ECF No. 8 at 3–4]. At root, Petitioner challenges (1) ICE’s decision to execute the removal order against him and (2) the validity of the underlying removal order itself. Respondents argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the action. [ECF No. 8 at 2].Respondents are correct. The Court is unable to review the validity of the removal order against Duong, because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) “deprives... district courts of habeas jurisdiction to review orders of removal.” Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42 (1st Cir. 2005); see also Ishak v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 22, 27–28 (1st Cir. 2005). Nor can it review the decision to execute the order, because courts lack jurisdiction to review a “decision or action... to... execute removal orders.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); see Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 610–11, 615–18 (1st Cir. 2023).Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Petitioner seeks, Petitioner’s petition, [ECF No. 1 ], is DENIED.(CAM) (Entered: 10/01/2025)

Oct 01, 2025

Order