District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11697

#1

Apr 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11673382 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Ibrahim Lawnedi. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Macarius, Saher) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

#2

Apr 13, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Myong J. Joun 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: 04/13/2026)

#3

Apr 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). (SP) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

#4

Apr 13, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: 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 April 16, 2026.(SP) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

Apr 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Apr 15, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Apr 15, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2254

#7

Apr 17, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On April 13, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. No. 1 . Petitioner, a native and citizen of Egypt, claims he entered the United States on interim parole on July 7, 2024, and requested asylum, Doc. No. 1 at 1, ¶¶ 3, 5, but Respondents claim Petitioner entered the United States on an unknown date and at an unknown place, and was not inspected or admitted at that time, Doc. No. 6 at 2. Petitioner was placed in expedited removal proceedings and referred for a credible fear interview, and on August 9, 2024, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") vacated the underlying credible fear findings, commencing the removal proceedings against Petitioner. Doc. No. 6 at 2; Doc. No. 1 at 1, ¶ 3. Petitioner was arrested on June 13, 2025, Doc. No. 1 at 2, ¶ 7, and on July 10, 2025, an IJ conducted a custody redetermination hearing and denied Petitioner's request for bond because Petitioner posed a danger to the community, Doc. No. 6 at 3. Petitioner did not file an appeal of this decision with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") by August 11, 2025. Doc. No. 6 at 3. On November 19, 2025, an IJ ordered Petitioner removed to Egypt and denied asylum and withholding of removal. Doc. No. 6-5 at 1. Petitioner appealed this decision on December 2, 2025. Doc. No. 6-6 at 1. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) states: "The Attorney General's discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention of any [noncitizen] or the revocation or denial of bond or parole.” When a Petitioner challenges the exercise of discretion by the IJ, rather than the statutory scheme as a whole, the district court lacks jurisdiction. See, e.g., Martinez v. Hyde, 810 F. Supp. 3d 135, 142 (D. Mass. 2025) ("That argument [challenging jurisdiction] fails because Petitioner does not challenge the [BIA's] ultimate exercise of discretion") (internal citations omitted); Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 33 (1st Cir. 2021) ("To the extent the government is arguing that section 1226(e) deprives the district court or this court of jurisdiction, that claim fails: [Petitioner] does not challenge the IJ's ultimate exercise of discretion, but rather the extent of the Government's detention authority under the statutory framework as a whole.”) (internal citations omitted). Here, Petitioner argues that he appeared for his bond hearing, but the IJ "refused to grant relief stating there was no jurisdiction." Doc. No. 1 at 1. However, Petitioner offers no evidence to support that claim, and Respondents present evidence demonstrating something else. The IJ's July 10, 2025, order at Doc. 6-4 shows that Petitioner was denied a change in custody status, and denied bond, because Petitioner poses "a danger to the community." Doc. No. 6-4 at 1. There is no evidence that Petitioner appealed this decision, and Respondents allege he failed to do so. Doc. No. 6 at 2. While the exact basis for Petitioner's request is unclear, the evidence before me indicates this Court lacks jurisdiction. An IJ, examining Petitioner's full record, which includes an arrest for assault on a juvenile, see Doc. No. 6 at 3, determined Petitioner was a danger to the community. § 1226(e) strips this court of any jurisdiction to review that discretionary finding. As such, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 1, is DENIED.(SP) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#8

Apr 17, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE.(SP) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

Order