District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-11976

#1

May 01, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11714262 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Brian Buhamiizo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Category Form)(Maguire, Claire) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#2

May 01, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy 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: 05/01/2026)

#3

May 01, 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). (MBM) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#4

May 01, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL.Respondents shall determine whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-CV-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), and notify the Court no later than 1:00 p.m. on Monday, May 4, 2026.Respondents shall provide any further answer to the Petition, if necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 2026.(MBM) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

May 01, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

May 06, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Engingro, III on behalf of Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, David Wesling (Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#6

May 06, 2026

RESPONSE/ANSWER to Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), by Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, David Wesling. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Engingro, Vincent) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#7

May 07, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. “[P]ost-removal-period detention under section 1231(a)(6) cannot go beyond ‘a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States.’” Phommachak v. Wesling, 816 F. Supp. 3d 201, 206 (D. Mass. 2026) (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001)). “[O]nce the alien 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. Petitioner has been detained since October 30, 2025, and was granted CAT Deferral preventing his removal to his birth country of Uganda. Dkt. 1 at 1–2; Dkt. 6 at 2. Petitioner claims that “ICE has received no information from any other country stating that it will accept [Petitioner] if he is removed from the United States.” Dkt. 1 at 2.Respondents assert that “Petitioner has been nominated for removal to a third country pursuant to a Third Country Removal agreement” and that “ICE is now awaiting final confirmation of the Petitioner’s acceptance by the Third Country.” Dkt. 6 -1 at 6. This bare assertion, without more, is not “evidence sufficient to rebut th[e] showing” that removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701; Dmitrii Belonogov v. FCI Berlin, Warden, 2026 WL 1091203, at *5 (D.N.H. Apr. 22, 2026) (“Generalized assertions about ongoing removal efforts are insufficient to justify continued detention.”); see also, e.g., Ambila v. Joyce, 2025 WL 1534852, at *4 (D. Me. May 28, 2025) (“[T]he Government has not produced evidence of a Congolese passport for Mr. Ambila or other travel documents demonstrating the temporal imminency of his travel, nor has it provided evidence indicating the DRC has consented to Mr. Ambila's removal there. Without such evidence, the Court cannot reach the conclusion that the Petitioner's removal to the DRC is significantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.”). Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to provide the Court with more concrete evidence that Petitioner’s removal is reasonably foreseeable, on or before Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 4:00 pm, or to release Petitioner from detention. (MBM) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

May 07, 2026

Order

#8

May 12, 2026

Status Report

#9

May 21, 2026

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In support of their position that Petitioner’s detention was lawful because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) was “working diligently to secure a Third Country removal,” Dkt. 6 at 8, Respondents provided a declaration by ICE Acting Assistant Field Office Director, Brian E. Sullivan, stating: “Petitioner has been nominated for removal to a third country pursuant to a Third Country Removal agreement negotiated between the Third Country and the Department of State. The Petitioner meets the parameters of the agreement. ICE is now awaiting final confirmation of the Petitioner’s acceptance by the Third Country,” Dkt. 6 -1 ¶ 33. However, when the Court directed Respondents to either “provide the Court with more concrete evidence that Petitioner’s removal is reasonably foreseeable” or to release Petitioner, Dkt. 7, Respondents, instead of providing any further information, reported that “[a]fter discussing the matter with [ICE] agency counsel, the Petitioner was released from custody,” Dkt. 8 at 1. Regrettably, courts across the country have grown increasingly skeptical of statements made by ICE officers after repeated misrepresentations to this Court and others. See, e.g., Navarro v. Lyons, No. 1:26-cv-10876-WGY, Dkt. 23 at 4 n.2 (D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2026) (describing “[t]he inconsistency of Respondents’ representations” as “glaring”); Afr. Comms. Together v. Lyons, No. 1:25-cv-06366, Dkt. 78–80 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2026) (ordering USAO staff and “assigned ICE counsel” to retain all communications regarding a memorandum after counsel for government defendants informed that court that the memorandum did not actually apply to immigration courts, despite repeated representations to the court to that effect); D.V.D. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2026 WL 521557, at *6 (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2026) (describing misrepresentations to the Supreme Court by ICE officer regarding the location of a deportation flight); Clarke v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 2:25-cv-06773, Dkt. 14, at 5, 9–10 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2025) (describing declarations as “dubious,” “evasive and demonstrably false,” and as “contain[ing] material misstatements”); cf. Juan T.R. v. Noem, No. 0:26-cv-00107, Dkt. 7 at 1–3 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2026) (ordering Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons to appear before the Court and show cause for why he should not be held in contempt in light of repeated violations of court orders). And, as particularly relevant here, another court in this District recently issued sanctions after a declaration by Mr. Sullivan was discovered to have plain misstatements of fact. See Guevara Peruano v. Wesling, No. 1:26-cv-10300-LTS, Dkt. 43, at 25–26 (D. Mass. May 20, 2026).In light of the above, Respondents are ORDERED to provide additional substantive support for the statements made in Mr. Sullivan’s declaration, Dkt. 6 -1, regarding Petitioner’s potential removal to an unspecified “Third Country,” on or before Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 3:00 pm in the form of a declaration under oath by Mr. Sullivan. This response must include the details of what “nominated” means and provide written confirmation thereof.(MBM) (Entered: 05/21/2026)

May 21, 2026

Order