Juan Navarro v. Lyons et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

r . Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 Filed 03/25/26 Page1of9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JORGE JUAN NAVARRO,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 26-10876-WGY

Vv.

TODD LYONS, in his official
capacity as Acting Director of
U.S. Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement,

DAVID WESLING, in his official
capacity as Acting ICE Boston
Field Office Director,

U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,

ANTONE MONIZ, in his official
capacity as Superintendent,
Plymouth County Correctional
Facility,

Respondents.

eee eee ese eee ieee es aes ee es ee aes a eee esl ee

YOUNG, D.J. March 25, 2026
STAY ORDER

Petitioner Jorge Juan Navarro (“Juan Navarro”) filed his
petition, Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, on February 16,
2026. He came to the United States from Cuba in or around July
1992, id. Tf 2, 21, was issued a final order of removal on or
around November 20, 2001, but “Cuba would not accept him,” id.
4, see FF 3, 24. Juan Navarro was convicted of criminal
offenses in 1998 and 2009. Id. 7 23. ICE issued an order of

supervision on or around November 18, 2014 and Juan Navarro has

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2of9

complied with it since. Id. 471 6-7, 25. Juan Navarro was
arrested and detained in ICE custody at the ICE Boston Field
Office after he presented himself for a check-in appointment on
February 16, 2026. Id. 47 8-9, 28.

Juan Navarro alleges Immigration and Nationality Act and
Fifth Amendment Due Process violations because he “continues to
be detained for immigration purposes when ICE knows that it
cannot promptly effect Mr. Juan Navarro’s removal from the
United States, and such detention is not reasonably required to
ensure Mr. Juan Navarro’s compliance with the terms of his order
of supervision... .” Id. 4 37; see id. (71 42-43.

Respondents filed their response, Resp’ts’ Opp’n Pet’r’s
Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Resp’ts’
Opp’n”) ECF No. 7, on February 24, 2026,!} stating that Juan
Navarro, a Cuban citizen, is being detained under 8 U.S.C. §
1231(a) (6) following a revocation of his Order of Supervision
(“OSUP”). Id. at 2-3. Respondents argue his detention is legal
as Juan Navarro was convicted of an aggravated felony and thus
falls within the purview of section 1231(a)(6) as an individual
fulfilling certain grounds for removability pursuant to section

1227 (a) (2) (A) (iii). Id. at 6. Respondents also explain how

1 Respondents are all represented by the United States Department of Justice.

[2]

4

Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 Filed 03/25/26 Page3of9

they promptly may effectuate Juan Navarro’s removal to Mexico as
a country with a “standing agreement” with the United States to
accept Cuban Nationals, alleging over 6,000 successful removals
of Cuban Nationals in fiscal years 2025 and 2026. Id. at 8.
Respondents further argue that the revocation of the Juan
Navarro’s OSUP was legal as the regulation provides ICE with
“significant discretion” to revoke it under 8 U.S.C. § 241.4 and

§ 241.13. Id. at 8; see also id. at 9.

The gist of this habeas petition focuses on Juan Navarro’s
concerns surrounding his pending deportation to Mexico, not his
native land, Cuba. Since Juan Navarro’s concerns largely

overlap with those raised in D.V.D. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland

Sec., No. CV 25-10676-BEM, 2026 WL 521557 (D. Mass. Feb. 25,

2026) (Murphy, J.), appeal docketed, No. 26-1212 (lst Cir. Feb.

28, 2026); see also Order, No. 26-1212 (lst Cir. Mar. 16, 2026)
(granting Defendant’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal),
this Court held an oral hearing on March 9, 2026. Elec. Clerk’s
Notes, ECF No. 14. Not surprisingly, Juan Navarro’s counsel
raised a plethora of procedural issues, big and small.
Respondents’ counsel’s response could be paraphrased as:
“Nothing to look at here, everything is properly nailed down and
deportation is commensurate with both procedural and substantive

due process.” See Hr’g Tr. 20-27, ECF No. 19. While helpful,

[3]

Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 Filed 03/25/26 Page 4of9

the oral arguments were too conclusory to warrant immediate
resolution. The Court therefore called for further briefing and
asked for actual evidence -- not ICE declarations -- from
Respondents. Elec. Clerk’s Notes; Hr’g Tr. 22:16-25.
Respondents’ counsel agreed -- in particular, that she would
produce the agreement between the United States and Mexico
whereby Mexico agreed to accept Cuban nationals deported by the
United States. Hr’g Tr. 21:14-25, 23:1-7.
On March 13, 2026, Respondents’ counsel informed the Court:
. . . Mexico has a standing (unwritten) agreement with
the United States to accept Cuban Nationals for removal
and that no travel document is necessary. [ICE
declaration omitted] ICE removed approximately 6,000
Cuban nationals to Mexico in the last year. Based on
this agreement and successful removals, it is clear
removal to Cuba was considered to be impractical,
inadvisable, or impossible. 8 U.S.C. §

1231 (b) (1) (C) (iv).

Resp’ts’ Suppl. Briefing 10, ECF No. 17.2

2 The inconsistency of Respondents’ representations is even
more glaring considering they expressed their readiness to
provide the underlying documents, but now state that the
removals to Mexico are somehow based on a “CHVN agreement”
establishing a parole process for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans,
and Nicaraguans from January 2023, which suggests that they
should have known whether a written version exists or not. See
Resp’ts’ Suppl. Briefing 3-4.

[4]

Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 Filed 03/25/26 Page5of9

What?

Can this be true? There’s some unwritten deal? between two
sovereign nations whereby 6,000 Cuban nationals have already
been shipped to Mexico? Is this deal secret? Put aside the
striking illogic of arguing “we’re already doing this on a grand
scale so it must be okay,” this is but a stark admission that
here there’s no process at all beyond “it is what we say it is.”
At some point, judicial restraint and deference to the
executive’s statutory duties become abdication of my duty to
exercise the judicial function.

On this woefully inadequate record, acquiescence to
Respondents’ position is such an abdication. Accordingly, the
better part of valor is to stay this case pending receipt of the
mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the First

Circuit in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No.

26-1212 (appeal filed February 28, 2026). Such a stay is
appropriate as the guidance of the First Circuit will -- or at
least is expected to -- fill in with binding precedent many of

the blanks in this area.

3 Notably, Respondents, in a footnote, inform the Court that
there “does not appear to be a written agreement” by pointing
not to any primary source, nor providing any affidavits, but by
citing to a third-party website, tracking human rights issues
related to third-country deportations. Resp’ts’ Suppl. Briefing
4n. 5.

[5]

Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 _ Filed 03/25/26 Page 6of9

To enable this Court promptly to act upon receipt of the
First Circuit’s mandate in D.V.D., counsel is invited to ponder,
examine, and supplement the record (nothwithstanding the stay of
ultimate action) with actual evidence.‘

Consider these questions:

The Court needs to know everything there is to know about
this so-called “unwritten agreement.”>5 When did it take effect?
What are its provisions? What is its duration? Does it operate
only with Mexico or with other sovereign states? Does it
involve only Cuban nationals or, under this unwritten agreement,
will Mexico take the nationals of other sovereign states? What
United States government official will step forward to admit
binding the United States to an agreement with another sovereign
state? Who is the counterpart official in the government of

Mexico? Will he or she step forward? Or is this agreement

4 Affidavits of ICE officials that go further than
admissions of what the affiant knows of his own personal
knowledge (hearsay won’t do) will be disregarded.

“(Aj ffidavit[s] [are] the Potemkin Village[s] of today's
litigation landscape. Purported adjudication by affidavit is
like walking down a street between two movie sets, all lawyer-
painted fagade and no interior architecture.” United States v.
Massachusetts, 781 F. Supp. 2d 1, 22 n. 25 (D. Mass. 2011).

5 At this juncture, the Court takes Respondents’ counsel at
her word that such an agreement actually exists and is not some
post hoc figment of ICE’s imagination or worse, a cloak for
chicanery.

[6]

Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 Filed 03/25/26 Page /7of9

secret? If so, why?® Did the Senate consent? Was it ever
consulted? Or even informed?’

If such unwritten agreement exists, of course there will be
written evidence of it - directives, briefing papers, internal
correspondence, all the debris of a functioning bureaucracy.
This Court expects to see it all.

Step back and take a breath. Can it be true that 6,000

Cuban nationals have already been sent to Mexico on a handshake?

6 There are procedures in place whereby this Court may
review such material. This Court scrupulously followed such
procedures in United States v. Reid, 214 F. Supp. 2d 84, 85 (D.
Mass. 2002) (“the shoe bomber” case) and United States v.
Wright, 285 F. Supp. 3d 443 (D. Mass. 2018), aff'd, 937 F.3d 8
(lst Cir. 2019).

7 In the words of the distinguished late Senator Byrd,
. when Washington decided that, in the future, he would send the
Senate written communications regarding treaties, he set the
precedent that all of his successors have followed.” 2 RoBERT C.
BYRD, THE SENATE 1789-1989: ADDRESSES ON THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE 6 (Wendy Wolff ed., 1991). After all,

{[w]hen the thirteen colonies rebelled against the

English king, they rejected the concept of monarchy on

our shores. When the Constitution created an executive

branch and a president of the United States, it gave him

no unchecked or unconditional powers. The English king

could make treaties exclusively on his own, but this

would not be true for the American president. The

Constitution, instead, made treatymaking a concurrent

power. The United States Senate has carefully guarded

its share of this power for two hundred years, as I trust

it will continue to do, perpetually into the future of

this Republic.
Id. at 23.

“

(7]

Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 _ Filed 03/25/26 Page 8of9

Are they “the worst of the worst,”® in ICE’s mendacious public
relations phraseology? What procedures, if any, were followed
for these 6,000 folks? Were they turned away at the border or
seized within the interior of the United States? How many in
each category? How do the procedures followed with these
“handshake” Cuban Hispanics compare with those foreign nationals

from other racial groups??

@ See ARRESTED: WORST OF THE WorsT, https://www.dhs.gov/wow (last
visited March 23, 2026).
9 The world watches.
It apparently concludes our nation is a racist actor. The
United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination reports itself
[d]eeply concerned about the reportedly increased use of
racist hate speech, including the use of derogatory and
dehumanizing language, and the dissemination of negative
and harmful stereotypes targeting migrants, refugees,
asylum seekers, including by portraying them as
criminals or as a burden, by politicians and influential
public figures at the highest level of the State Party,
particularly its President, which fosters intolerance
and may incite racial discrimination, hate crimes and
hate speech, particularly on the Internet and social
media, and about the insufficient measures to prevent
and address racist hate speech .
Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Decision 1
(2026), at 1. Cuba, Mexico, and the United States are all
signatories to the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Opened for signature
Mar. 7, 1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force Jan. 4,
1969), the United States Senate ratified this convention in
1994. S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-18. “(W]e can not escape history.
The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in
honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.” Abraham Lincoln,
Second Annual Message to Congress (December 1, 1862) reprinted
by THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT,

[8]

Case 1:26-cv-10876-WGY Document 23 Filed 03/25/26 Page 9of9

These few questions are illustrative, not exhaustive. The
Court depends on counsel to pose and resolve all questions
relevant to the determination of this habeas corpus petition.

For these reasons, this Court stays this case upon the
terms discussed above!® until the First Circuit issues its

mandate in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. All

the stay orders in this case remain in full force and effect
until lifted by express order or vacated by a court with a

higher commission.

SO ORDERED.

Whim Li puny
WILLIAM cf YOUNG
JUDG
of the
UNITED STATES?!

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/second-annual-message-
9 (last visited March: 23, 2026).

10 =The Court will, however, consider Petitioner’s custodial
status pending the expiration of the stay.

11 This is how my predecessor, Peleg Sprague (D. Mass 1841-
1865), would sign official documents. Now that I’m a Senior
District Judge I adopt this format in honor of all the judicial
colleagues, state and federal, with whom I have had the
privilege to serve over the past 48 years.

[9]