District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11005

#1

Feb 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11574436 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Kha Le. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Freidel, Irene) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#2

Feb 26, 2026

AFFIDAVIT of Petitioner Kha Le re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) by Kha Le. (Freidel, Irene) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#3

Feb 26, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Angel Kelley 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. (SEC) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#4

Feb 26, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition, Stay of Transfer or Removal, and Required Response. (CEH) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#5

Feb 26, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 4 Service Order - 2241 Petition Emailed to AUSA Lindsey Ross, Rayford Farquhar, and USAMA Civil Process on 2/26/2026 at 2:24 PM and mailed to All Respondents (CEH) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#6

Feb 26, 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). (CEH) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#7

Feb 26, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Standing Order Regarding Motion Practice. (CEH) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Feb 26, 2026

Copy Mailed

#8

Mar 02, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#9

Mar 03, 2026

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

#10

Mar 05, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.Before the Court is Petitioner Kha Le’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 1]. Respondents note that “the legal issues presented in the Petition are similar to those recently addressed by this Court” [Dkt. 9] in Long Thuc Huynh v. Wesling, 25-CV-13794 (D. Mass. Jan. 23, 2026) [Dkt. 13], in which the Court held that the arrest and re-detention of noncitizens released on an order of supervision under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) are subject to the regulations promulgated under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3), including 8 C.F.R. § 241.13. On the facts before it, the Court does not find reason to deviate from the analysis presented in Huynh. Accordingly, to justify Petitioner’s re-detention, Respondents are required to follow the procedures in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, including demonstrating that changed circumstances exist and that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents do not raise arguments regarding either and submits that “the Court may resolve this Petition without further briefing or oral argument.” [Dkt. 9]. Thus, the Court considers any such argument waived and finds that Petitioner’s detention is unlawful.When a noncitizen’s detention is not in compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and its implementing regulations, the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See Tran v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-12546, 2025 WL 3724853, at *4 (D. Mass. Dec. 24, 2025); Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144, 152-53 (D. Mass. June 20, 2025); Rombot v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 389 (D. Mass. 2017). Accordingly, the appropriate remedy in this case is release. Petitioner’s Petition [Dkt. 1] is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner pursuant to the order of supervision that was in effect prior to his re-detention.(CEH) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

Mar 05, 2026

Order