District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-13955

#1

Aug 27, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11990348 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Jean Rito Francois. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit A - Form I -94, # 4 Exhibit B - NTA)(Bade, Jennifer) Modified on 8/28/2026: Removed duplicate text. (FGD) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#2

Aug 28, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick 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 M. Page Kelley. (NMC) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#3

Aug 28, 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). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#4

Aug 28, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than September 4, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#5

Aug 28, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to all respondents on 8/28/2026: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

Aug 28, 2026

Copy Mailed

Aug 28, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Sep 03, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Sep 04, 2026

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

#8

Sep 16, 2026

First Response by Jean Rito Francois to 7 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241 . (Bade, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#9

Sep 16, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Jean Rito Francois, a citizen of Haiti who entered the United States in August 2024, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 27, 2026 seeking his immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF 1, ¶¶ 1, 6, 15. He was arrested and detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on or around August 6, 2026. Id. ¶ 21. Francois remains in ICE’s custody at Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 2.The respondents argue that Francois is detained as an applicant for admission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because his parole was revoked. ECF 7, at 1. The respondents’ arguments are flawed for multiple reasons. First, Francois was no longer on parole when the parole was allegedly revoked. Francois was granted parole on August 4, 2024, and it expired on April 18, 2025. ECF 1-3, at 2. It is therefore disingenuous for respondents to contend that Francois’ parole was revoked over one year later, and that he returned to the same status as when he arrived in the United States. Second, Francois cannot be detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) because he does not appear to be an “applicant for admission”—i.e., “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1); see id. § 1225(b)(2)(A) (indicating the statute applies only to “applicant[s] for admission”). The documents attached to Francois’ petition—namely, his I-94 form—suggest that he was admitted into the United States on August 4, 2024. ECF 1-3, at 2. That form by its terms is given to a noncitizen who has been “lawfully admitted or paroled into the U.S.” Id.; see also U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Official Site for Travelers Visiting the United States: Apply for Provisional I-94, Retrieve Form I-94/I-95, Request Travel History and Check Travel Compliance, https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/home (I-94 forms are for “traveler[s] lawfully admitted (or paroled) into the U.S.”). It describes Francois’ “Class of Admission” as “DT,” and it gives Francois an “Admission I-94 Record Number.” ECF 1-3, at 2. The respondents offer no argument explaining how, in light of the representations in this I-94 form, Francois could be considered an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). In addition, Francois’ Notice to Appear does not check the box alleging that “[y]ou are an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.” ECF 1-4, at 2.The respondents’ response cites to other decisions of this Court involving allegedly similar claimed bases for detention, but almost all of those decisions involve detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), the latter of which is the respondents’ claimed basis for detention here. See, e.g., Rincon v. Hyde, 810 F. Supp. 3d 101, 108 (D. Mass. 2025) (“Petitioner’s initial detention and expedited removal order were done pursuant to section 1225(b)(1).”); Souza v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-13334, 2025 WL 4945686, at *2 (D. Mass. Dec. 1, 2025) (“Respondents contend that Mr. Alves de Souza is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).”); Celestin v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-11249, 2026 WL 1031165, at *1 (D. Mass. Apr. 16, 2026) (“Respondent asserts that petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).”). The respondents have offered no argument for any assertion that Francois could be detained under Section 1225(b)(1).The respondents have, accordingly, failed to offer any cogent argument that Francois is subject to mandatory detention under any provision of Section 1225(b). Because Francois was not on parole at the time of his detention, and he is apparently not applicant for admission, the Court concludes that Section 1226(a), not Section 1225(b), governs his detention. Noncitizens like Francois “detained under Section 1226(a) have the right to request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, at which the government bears the burden to prove that continued detention is justified.” dos Santos v. Noem, No. 25-cv-12052, 2025 WL 2370988, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025). Bond may be denied only if the government “either (1) prove[s] by clear and convincing evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a danger to the community or (2) prove[s] by a preponderance of the evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a flight risk.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).For the foregoing reasons, Francois’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of this Order. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report within 24 hours of the Immigration Judge’s decision on bond, stating whether Francois has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial, or whether he has been released, and if so, the date, time, and location of his release. The respondents should include a copy of the Immigration Judge’s decision with their status report. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

Sep 16, 2026

Order