District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13394

#1

Jul 24, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Pierre Andy Jean Louis Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11912922 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Pierre Andy Jean Louis. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit )(Miller, Seth) Modified on 7/24/2026 (SR). (Entered: 07/24/2026)

#2

Jul 24, 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (EZG) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

#3

Jul 24, 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: 07/24/2026)

#4

Jul 24, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (EZG) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

Jul 24, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jul 31, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Aug 07, 2026

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

#7

Oct 01, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), filed by Pierre Jean Louis. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Pierre Jean Louis ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and the government's response, D. 6, the Court DENIES the Petition. Factual Background. Petitioner is a native of Haiti. D. 1 ¶ 48; see D. 1-3 at 4, 8. On September 24, 2024, Petitioner applied for admission at the Nogales, Arizona Port of Entry, see D. 1-3 at 8, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") paroled Petitioner into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). D. 1 ¶¶ 48-49; see D. 1-3 at 8. CBP subsequently placed Petitioner in removal proceedings. D. 1 ¶ 49; see D. 1-3 at 8. On July 20, 2026, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") issued Petitioner a letter terminating his parole. See D. 6-1 at 1. On July 18, 2026, Petitioner was detained by ICE and remains in detention at Plymouth County Correctional Facility. D. 1 ¶¶ 54-55.Petitioner alleges that his custody is unlawful under the reasoning of another court in Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025), judgment entered sub nom. Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). D. 1 at 4 ¶ 1. Among other relief, the Petitioner had sought a bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). D. 1 at 18. Respondents contend Petitioner's arrest and detention are governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), D. 6 at 9-13, is constitutional, id. at 13-19, and that Petitioner's reliance on Bautista is misplaced, id. at 19 & n.4.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"). The parties dispute whether Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, entitling him to a bond hearing, or 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which does not. D. 1 ¶¶ 61-73; D. 6 at 9-13. The First Circuit concluded that "§ 1225 and § 1226 [are] separate authorities that apply to different noncitizen groups . . . § 1225(b)(2) [is] the detention authority for noncitizens 'seeking admission into the country' and § 1226 [is] the detention authority for those 'already in the country.'" Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 188 F.4^th 1, 15-16 (1st Cir. Aug. 13, 2026) (affirming that noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection are not "seeking admission" under § 1225(b)(2)(A), making them subject to § 1226(a)'s discretionary detention with bond eligibility). The record here indicates that Petitioner sought admission into the United States and the CBP subsequently paroled him under § 1182(d)(5)(A). See D. 1-3 at 4, 8; D. 6-1 at 1. Parole pursuant to § 1182(d)(5)(A) "employs a legal fiction whereby non-citizens are physically permitted to enter the country but are nonetheless 'treated,' for legal purposes, 'as if stopped at the border.'" Martinez v. Hyde, 792 F. Supp. 3d 211, 216 (D. Mass. 2025) (quoting Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 139 (2020)); De Andrade v. Moniz, 802 F. Supp. 3d 325, 330 (D. Mass. 2025) (providing that "[a] non-citizen paroled into the country under 1182(d)(5)(A) is still treated as an applicant for admission subject to the expedited removal process"). Because Petitioner sought admission into the United States and was subsequently paroled under § 1182(d)(5)(A), D. 1 ¶¶ 48-49; D. 6 at 3; see D. 1-3 at 8, which "explicitly provides that upon termination of parole, the alien is to be replaced into the custody from which he was paroled[,]" Banegas v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-13161-NMG, 2025 WL 3251395, at *3 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2025), and because ICE terminated Petitioner's parole on July 20, 2026, D. 6-1 at 1, his current detention is governed by § 1225. Accordingly, Petitioner's detention does not violate the Due Process Clause, and he is not entitled to a bond hearing. Banegas, 2025 WL 3251395, at *3; see Galicia v. Lyons, No. 26-cv-11468-FDS, 2026 WL 1847046, at *5 (D. Mass. June 26, 2026) (denying a petition where petitioner was an applicant for admission and paroled under § 1182(d)(5)(A), making him subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)).Further, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks under Bautista. As an initial matter, the Ninth Circuit granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal of "the district court's December 18, 2025 class certification order and final judgment, insofar as they extend beyond the Central District of California." Bautista v. Exec. Office for Immigr. Review, Nos. 25-7958, 26-1044, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9401, at *7-8 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026). Even assuming arguendo, that Bautista applied to this case, Petitioner does not fall in the definition of the bond-eligible class because Petitioner "entered the United States with inspection on September 24, 2024." D. 1 ¶ 8; see Bautista, 813 F. Supp. 3d at 1095 (defining the bond-eligible class as "[a]ll noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination"). Accordingly, the reasoning and relief provided in Bautista does not apply here.To the extent Petitioner also requested that he shall not be transferred out of Massachusetts indefinitely, see D. 1 at 18, this relief is DENIED. See Benito Vasquez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp. 3d 177, 182 (D. Mass. 2025) (noting generally that "such requests are beyond the extent of habeas relief"). For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition, D. 1. (SEC) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#8

Oct 01, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER OF DISMISSAL. (SEC) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Oct 01, 2026

Order