District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10903

#1

Feb 17, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Yonas Bahya Araya. (MAC) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#2

Feb 17, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Yonas Bahya Araya. (MAC) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#3

Feb 18, 2026

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 Paul G. Levenson. (SP) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#4

Feb 18, 2026

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (CAM) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#5

Feb 18, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: SERVICE ORDER re 2241 Petition. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than 14 days from the date of this order.Petitioner's MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is ALLOWED. Antone Moniz shall be the sole respondent. The other respondents are dismissed from this action without prejudice.(Todd Lyons, District Director, ICE and Kristi Noem, DHS Secretary terminated.)See full order attached. (CAM) Modified on 2/18/2026 (CAM). (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#6

Feb 18, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 5 Service Order, emailed to Duty AUSA Balakrishna and mailed to respondent on 2/18/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#7

Feb 18, 2026

Copy re 4 General Order 19-02, 5 Service Order mailed to Petitioner on 2/18/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

Feb 18, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Feb 18, 2026

Copy Mailed

#8

Mar 04, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#9

Mar 04, 2026

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

#10

Mar 16, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Petitioner Yonas Bahya Araya’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, [ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”)]. Petitioner is an Eritrean citizen who has been in the United States since 1988. [ECF No. 9-1 (“Sullivan Decl.”) ¶¶ 6–7]. From 1992 to 2009, petitioner had lawful permanent resident status. [Id. ¶¶ 8–9]. In 2009, following an aggravated felony conviction, the government commenced removal proceedings against Petitioner, and on December 22, 2009, an immigration judge entered a final order of removal against him and Petitioner waived appeal. [Id. ¶ 10]. Six months later, he was released from the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) subject to an order of supervision. [Id. ¶ 11]. On June 23, 2025, after he was arrested on other criminal charges, ICE agents took Petitioner back into custody, [id. ¶ 12], where he has remained for the last eight and a half months, [id. ¶¶ 18–19]. In July, Petitioner completed a travel document application for Eritrea, which was submitted to the Eritrean government on September 15, 2025. [Id. ¶¶ 14–17]. “ICE Removal and International Operations is actively working with the Eritrean Government to procure a travel document for the Petitioner,” [id. ¶ 20], and “twenty-one... Eritrean nationals” were “removed to Eritrea during the calendar year of 2025,” [id. ¶ 21], but Petitioner’s “travel document request remains pending,” [id. ¶ 20]. Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 17, 2026, asserting that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he has been detained for more than six months and his removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Petitioner asserts that his removal is unlikely for two reasons: (1) there is a war in Eritrea and (2) the country refuses to accept him. See [Pet. at 6]; Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699–701 (2001). Under Zadvydas, after a petitioner has been detained for six months, if he or she “provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Without deciding the adequacy of Petitioner’s first contention about a war in Eritrea, the Court is satisfied that the delay in approving his travel documents supports his contention that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. In response, Respondents point only to ICE’s “continued efforts to procure a travel document for [Petitioner]” and the fact that “ICE has removed 21 Eritrean nationals during the calendar year of 2025.” [Id. at 12]. (Respondents spend much of their responsive brief discussing inapposite cases in which petitioners were in withholding-only proceedings and did not have final orders of removal, see [ECF No. 9 at 8–10].)The information provided by Respondents establishes only that (1) ICE is trying to remove Petitioner and (2) ICE successfully removed 21 Eritrean nationals in the last year. The information about 21 removals is unaccompanied by any statistical information that conveys how many people are waiting for removal to Eritrea or how long those 21 had been waiting. Thus, the limited facts offered by Respondents are not sufficient to rebut Petitioner’s showing of good reason to conclude that his removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of supervision required by law and regulation, and to file a status update with this Court within ten days confirming Petitioner’s release. Nothing in this order shall prevent Respondents from returning Petitioner to custody if and when changed conditions mean that his removal to Eritrea is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.(CAM) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Order

#11

Mar 18, 2026

Status Report

#12

Mar 19, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On March 16, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner's habeas petition and ordered his release subject to an order of supervision. [ECF No. 10 ]. The government's status report, [ECF No. 11 ], states that Petitioner was released accordance with the Court's order. Because Petitioner has been released from custody, this action is dismissed. (CAM) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#13

Mar 19, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Mar 19, 2026

Order