District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11260

#1

Mar 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11609900 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Charles Mfuny Mukeba. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Araujo, Annelise) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#2

Mar 13, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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 M. Page Kelley. (SP) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#3

Mar 13, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#4

Mar 13, 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). (SEC) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

Mar 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Mar 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 26, 2026

Extension of Time to File Answer

#7

Mar 27, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) All Defendants 4/3/26. (LMH) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Mar 27, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

#8

Apr 03, 2026

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

#9

Apr 06, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#10

Apr 13, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) filed by Charles Mfuny Mukeba. Having considered the petition of Charles Mfuny Mukeba ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), D. 1, the government's response, D. 8, and Petitioner's reply, D. 9, the Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1. The Court ORDERS Respondents to release Petitioner pursuant to the order of supervision that was in effect prior to his re-detention. Factual Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen from the Democratic Republic of Congo who has been living in the United States since 2021 and resided in Biddeford, Maine with his wife and two minor children prior to his detention. D. 1 ¶¶ 13-15. Prior to entering the United States, Petitioner and his family resided in Brazil for six years but left due to "violence and threats to their safety in the slum in which they resided." Id. ¶ 15. Following his arrival in the United States, Petitioner underwent removal proceedings during which the Department of Homeland Security named only the Democratic Republic of Congo as the country to which removal would be directed. Id. ¶ 16. On August 29, 2022, an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts ordered Petitioner and his family removed, but granted them Withholding of Removal under INA § 241(b)(3), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), upon a finding that "their lives or freedom would more likely than not be threatened in the country of removal." Id. ¶ 17. The Immigration Judge's order specifically orders removal to "Democratic Republic of Congo or Brazil in the alternative." Id. ¶ 18. The Withholding of Removal order, however, does not specify which countries it is meant to cover. Id. Petitioner was subsequently released from detention pursuant to an order of supervision by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") due to its inability to effectuate his removal order. D. 8 at 2; see D. 1 ¶ 30. Petitioner and his family appealed the Immigration Judge's denial of asylum and on January 25, 2024, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed the denial of the asylum applications and the grant of Withholding of Removal in a final decision. D. 1 ¶ 19. On February 24, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner. Id. ¶ 20. He is currently detained at the Plymouth County House of Corrections in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Id. ICE has indicated to Petitioner that it intends to remove Petitioner to a third country which Petitioner opposes absent the opportunity to claim fear of harm and persecution in that country. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. On March 31, 2026, ICE moved to reopen Petitioner's removal proceeding to clarify the scope of the Immigration Judge's 2022 Withholding of Removal Order. D. 8 at 2 n.1. Discussion. Petitioner brings this Petition to challenge his detention in this district and seeks relief from same. D. 1. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Kong v. United States, 62 F. 4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context").Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) as his removal is not "reasonably foreseeable," D. 1 ¶¶ 31-37, and seeks immediate release from detention, id. at Prayer for Relief. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1), "when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as the 'removal period')." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) mandates that "the Attorney General shall detain the alien" for the removal period to effectuate the removal order. As relevant here, under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), the removal period begins on "[t]he date the order of removal becomes administratively final." "An order of removal becomes final at the earlier of two points: (1) 'a determination by the [BIA] affirming such order,' or (2) 'the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to” petition the BIA for review of the order.'" Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 267 (2025) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)). Here, Petitioner was ordered removed on August 29, 2022, D. 1 ¶ 17, and the removal order became final, and his removal period consequently began, on January 25, 2024 when the BIA affirmed the removal order, id. ¶ 19. "If the mandatory removal period expires, ICE may either release the noncitizen pursuant to an order of supervision as directed by Section 1231(a)(3) or continue to detain the noncitizen under Section 1231(a)(6)." Huynh v. Wesling, No. 25-cv-13794-AK, 2026 WL 183467, at *2 (D. Mass. Jan. 23, 2026). Here, the parties' briefs indicate that Petitioner was released on an order of supervision under Section 1231(a)(3). D. 8 at 2; D. 9 at 1-2. "Section 1231(a)(3) dictates that noncitizens who are not deported within the removal period, 'shall be subject to supervision under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General.'" Huynh, 2026 WL 183467, at *2 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3)). ICE's regulations governing procedures for such supervision specify that to re-detain a noncitizen who is "subject to [a] final order[] of removal, detained beyond the removal period, and 'provided good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal to the country to which [they are] ordered removed... in the reasonably foreseeable future,'" id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(a)), ICE must "provide specific facts supporting '(1) an individualized determination (2) by ICE that, (3) based on changed circumstances, (4) removal has become significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,'" id. (quoting Kong, 62 F.4th at 619-20 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2))). The burden is on ICE to prove that removal is "significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future as to th[is] particular [Petitioner]." Van Tran v. Hyde, No. 25-CV-12546-ADB, 2025 WL 3724853, at *2 (D. Mass. Dec. 24, 2025). "Accordingly, the Court will consider the evidence presented by ICE in light of the factors enumerated in § 241.13(f) to determine whether ICE's re-detention decision was supported by changed circumstances." Id. at *3. Here, Respondents do not offer any facts to support their re-detention of Petitioner, but instead submit that "the legal and factual issues presented in this Petition appear similar to those examined by this and multiple other sessions of this Court" including Than Van Kim v. Moniz, 26-cv-10740-DJC, D. 8, (D. Mass. March 6, 2026); Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144 (D. Mass. 2025); Huynh, 2026 WL 183467, at *1; and Van Tran, 2025 WL 3724853, at *1. D. 8 at 1. In light of Respondents' failure to offer any "specific facts" to support their re-detention of Petitioner under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), see Huynh, 2026 WL 183467, at *2, and consistent with the decisions of this session and other sessions of this Court, the Court concludes that Respondents have failed to meet their burden of establishing a change of circumstances and that Petitioner is reasonable likely to be removed in the foreseeable future to support their re-detention of Petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2). Petitioner's detention therefore violates his rights under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to release from detention. Id. at *7 (noting that "[w]hen 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") (collecting cases recognizing same). In light of this ground for granting relief, the Court need not reach Petitioner's Fifth Amendment argument.For the foregoing reasons, the Court ALLOWS the Petition. D. 1. The Court ORDERS Respondents to release Petitioner pursuant to the order of supervision that was in effect prior to his re-detention. (SEC) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

#11

Apr 13, 2026

Order

Apr 13, 2026

Order