District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11292

#1

Mar 16, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11613355 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Selvin Onan Lemus Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Notice for Revocation of Release, # 2 Petitioner Declaration, # 3 Category Form, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Song, Yong Ho) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#2

Mar 16, 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 Donald L. Cabell. (SP) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#3

Mar 16, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered. Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal. The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than March 30, 2026. (CAM) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#4

Mar 16, 2026

General Order 19-02

#5

Mar 16, 2026

Copy re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), emailed to Duty AUSA Lyons and USAMA Civil Process on 3/16/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Mar 17, 2026

Copy Mailed

#6

Mar 18, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Mar 18, 2026

Copy re 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), mailed to Respondents on 3/18/2026. (CAM) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

Mar 18, 2026

Copy Mailed

#8

Mar 23, 2026

Response to Court Order

#9

Mar 23, 2026

Notice - Other

#10

Mar 24, 2026

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is Petitioner Selvin Onan Lemus Lopez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, [ECF No. 1 ], to which the government has responded, [ECF No. 8 ]. The government has indicated that it intends to transfer Petitioner from Massachusetts to effectuate his removal. [ECF No. 9 ].A declaration by Assistant Field Office Director Keith Chan, [ECF No. 8-1 ("Chan Declaration")], establishes the following. Petitioner is a Honduran citizen who was previously removed from the United States in January 2020. [Id. ¶¶ 6, 10]. In January 2021, Petitioner was encountered for a second time in the United States. [Id. ¶ 11]. Petitioner's removal order was reinstated, [id. ¶ 12], and he was released on an order of supervision in January 2021, [id. ¶ 14]. On December 13, 2025, Petitioner was redetained, [id. ¶ 15], and on December 18, 2025, the government served him with a notice that his order of supervised release had been revoked, [id. ¶ 17]. The notice stated that ICE had determined that Petitioner could be removed pursuant to his outstanding order of removal to Honduras, the purposes of his release had been served, it was appropriate to enforce his removal order, and his case was under review by Honduras for the issuance of a travel document. [ECF No. 8-3]. The government also conducted an “initial informal interview” with Petitioner, affording him an opportunity to respond to the revocation. [Chan Declaration ¶ 18]. The government has requested Petitioner’s identification documents and “will be prepared to remove Petitioner to Honduras” once it receives them. [Id. ¶ 19].Petitioner alleges that his redetention violated procedural and substantive due process, as well as the statute and regulation governing the detention and removal of noncitizens, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l). See generally [ECF No. 1 ]. Specifically, he alleges that he was “not provide[d]... notice of the individualized reasons for revocation and a meaningful opportunity to respond to those reasons,” [id. ¶ 35], that the government “had no legitimate, non-punitive objective in revoking” his order of supervision, [id. ¶ 43], and that the government did not make any finding that he was “dangerous or unlikely to comply with a removal order,” [id. ¶ 46], or that revocation of his order of supervision “was in the public interest,” [id. ¶ 49], before revoking his release. Petitioner’s challenges to his redetention do not carry the day. His statutory challenge fails because 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) permits the detention of noncitizens who are inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 even absent a determination that they are a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with the order of removal. His regulatory and procedural due process challenges fail because the government provided written notice and an informal interview consistent with the procedures set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l), which is sufficient to “protect the fundamental Fifth Amendment right to notice and an opportunity to be heard,” Jimenez v. Cronen, 317 F. Supp. 3d 626, 642 (D. Mass. 2018). His substantive due process challenge falls short because the Supreme Court has held that post-removal detention for six months is presumptively constitutional, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001), and Petitioner has been detained for less than four months. For the avoidance of doubt, this Court also cannot exercise jurisdiction over a challenge to the execution of Petitioner's final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Accordingly, Petitioner's petition, [ECF No. 1 ], is DENIED without prejudice. The Court's order, [ECF No. 3 ], prohibiting Petitioner from being "deported, removed, or otherwise transferred outside the United States," is hereby dissolved. (CAM) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#11

Mar 24, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Mar 24, 2026

Order