District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12420

#1

May 28, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11775139 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Yella Alex Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Category Form)(Katz Miller, Ariella) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#2

May 29, 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 Paul G. Levenson. (FGD) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#3

May 29, 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). (EZG) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#4

May 29, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (EZG) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jun 12, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Jun 12, 2026

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

#7

Jun 13, 2026

Leave to File Document

#8

Jun 18, 2026

Vacate

#9

Jun 19, 2026

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

#10

Jun 19, 2026

Memorandum of Law

#11

Jun 26, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered Petitioner's motion to file a reply is ALLOWED nunc pro tunc and the Court has considered that reply, D. 10, in its resolution of the Petition, D. 1 . (CM) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#12

Jun 26, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered Having considered the Petition of Yella Alex Craig ("Petitioner") for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 1, the government's response to same, D. 6, and Petitioner's reply, D. 10, the Court DENIES the Petition. Having also considered the government's motion to vacate this Court's prior order prohibiting Petitioner's removal without sufficient notice, D. 8, and Petitioner's opposition to same, D. 9, the Court ALLOWS that motion.Factual Background. Petitioner is a citizen and national of Liberia. D. 6 -1 6. He entered the United States on or around February 2, 1997 as an asylee. Id. 7. He adjusted to Lawful Permanent Resident ("LPR") status on or around October 1, 1998. Id. On or around June 19, 2007, Petitioner was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for an aggravated felony conviction while serving his sentence for same in New Hampshire state prison. Id. 9. On or around November 14, 2007, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to Liberia. Id. 11. Both parties waived appeal of this decision, such that Petitioner's removal order was administratively final. Id. On or around October 25, 2010, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") took custody of Petitioner once he was released from state prison. Id. 12. On or around February 8, 2011, ICE released Petitioner pursuant to an Order of Supervision ("OSUP"). Id. 13. Petitioner was re-detained by ICE on or around May 6, 2026 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231, id. 14, and he remains in detention at Plymouth County Correctional Facility in this District, D. 1 34. ICE provided Petitioner with a Notice of Revocation of Release (the "Notice"), D. 6 -4, which stated that his release had been revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) ("§ 241.4(l)"), indicating that it was "appropriate to enforce the removal order" as ICE had the ability and means to effectuate his removal and that it was seeking a travel document to effect Petitioner's removal to Liberia, id. at 1. As of on or about May 21, 2026, D. 8 -1; D. 10 at 6, ICE has possessed valid Liberian travel documents for Petitioner and he is on the manifest of a charter removal flight to Liberia next week. D. 6 -1 15-16. Petitioner alleges that his detention constitutes a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), D. 1 40-45, 52-58, and his Fifth Amendment due process rights, id. 46-51, 59-65. Among other relief, he seeks an order for his immediate release. Id. at 8.Discussion. This Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. 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"). It is not disputed here that 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) governs here, D. 6 at 6, as Petitioner's order of removal has been final since November 2007. The parties, however, dispute whether § 241.4 (which was cited in the Notice, D. 6 -4) or 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 ("§ 241.13"), governs, as Petitioner argues. See D. 1 42-44; 54-55; D. 6 at 5, 7-9; D. 10 at 7-9, 11-12, 15. The procedures for detention and release under each differ. See Phommachak v. Wesling, 816 F. Supp. 3d 201, 208 (D. Mass. 2026). The former provides for detention or release on an OSUP, and revocation of an OSUP where the individual has either violated the conditions of release or ICE, in its discretion, has determined that, as are relevant here, "the purposes of release have been served," or "it is appropriate to enforce a removal order. " 8 U.S.C. § 241.4(l)(1), (2). The latter, § 241.13 provides that "Section 241.4 shall continue to govern the detention of aliens under a final order of removal,..., unless [ICE] makes a determination under this section that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Id.; see Pen v. Wesling et al., No. 26-cv-10510-RGS, D. 18 (Mar. 10, 2026) (noting same). Here, the Notice cited § 241.1(l), D. 6 -4, as ICE had the ability and means to effectuate his removal. Id.; D. 6 -1 1; see Doe v. Smith, No. 18-cv-11363-FDS, 2018 WL 4696748, at *11 (D. Mass. Oct. 1, 2018) (concluding same that there was no violation of any relevant regulation, statute or constitutional requirement and denying habeas petition). Section 241.1(l) is the applicable regulation, D. 6 -4 at 2; § 241.4(l)(1) and, although the Court has considered Petitioner's arguments to the contrary, D. 1 42-44, 54-55; D. 10 at 7-17, it concludes that there is no basis to rely upon § 241.13 here. Although Petitioner disputes that he received notice of the revocation document, D. 1 -1 13-14; 9-1 13-14, the record reflects delivery of same and a refusal to sign, D. 6 -4.As in Pen, where Petitioner made similar arguments, the key issue is "whether, at the time of [Petitioner's] re-detention, ICE had made a determination that there was a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Pen, No. 26-cv-10510, D. 18, 19 (dismissing Petition). ICE made that determination here as to revoking Petitioner's OSUP on May 6, 2026, D. 6 -4 14, and, as of on or about May 21, 2026, D. 10 at 6; D. 8 -1, it had valid Liberian travel documents for Petitioner and intends to effectuate his removal next week. D. 6 -4 15-16. Here, where the Court cannot conclude that ICE violated the applicable regulations or that his detention rises to the level of a due process violation, particularly given the timing of his anticipated removal, see Hernandez Martinez v. Hyde, 814 F. Supp. 3d 4, 5 (D. Mass. 2025), it DENIES the Petition, D. 1 . In a separate motion, D. 8, Respondents move to vacate this Court's Order prohibiting Petitioner's removal, D. 4, arguing that, because Petitioner's removal order is administratively final, this Court lacks jurisdiction to stay same under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9), (g), D. 8 at 1-3. Having considered this motion and Petitioner's opposition, D. 9, and in light of the Court's ruling today on the Petition, the Court ALLOWS this motion and vacates as much of D. 4 that barred Petitioner's removal from the United States. (CM) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#13

Jun 26, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Jun 26, 2026

Order on Motion to Vacate

Jun 26, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document