Liu v. Wesling et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-10067-RGS
MAN NI LIU
v.
DAVID WESLING, Acting Director of Boston Field Office, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
January 29, 2025
STEARNS, D.J.
Petitioner Man Ni Liu filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging the legality of his most recent detention by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE). For the following reasons, the court will grant
the petition.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner Man Ni Liu was born in a refugee camp in Hong Kong (then
under British rule) on December 30, 1980. 	He entered the United States
with his parents as a refugee on February 27, 1981, and was granted
permanent resident status a year later.
Case 1:26-cv-10067-RGS Document 34 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
In 2003, petitioner was convicted of several deportable offenses. The
government initiated removal proceedings against him upon his release from
incarceration, culminating in the issuance of a final order of removal to his
presumed country of origin, China, on June 7, 2007.
On 	September 	7, 	2007, 	following 	the 	expiration 	of 	the 	90-day
detention period mandated by statute, the government released petitioner
from custody under an Order of Supervision while it attempted to obtain
travel documents from China permitting his removal. 	With one brief
exception,1 petitioner remained on supervised release for the next nineteen
years. His present detention began on January 8, 2026, when he appeared
(at ICE’s request) at its offices in Burlington, Massachusetts.
DISCUSSION
Section 1231(a)(6) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code permits the government
to discretionarily detain an alien who has been ordered removed beyond the
mandatory 90-day removal period. 	In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001), the Supreme Court read an implicit limitation into the statutory
provision that any post-removal detention may not exceed the “period
reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United
1 Immigration officials detained petitioner between July and December
of 2009 for failure to appear for a required report-in date.
Case 1:26-cv-10067-RGS Document 34 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
States.” 	Id. 	at 	689. 	Although 	a 	detention 	of 	up 	to 	six 	months 	is
presumptively reasonable, Zadvydas does not give the government free
license 	to 	confine 	aliens 	indefinitely. 	Id. 	at 	701. 	Detention 	is 	only
permissible “until it has been determined that there is no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id.
Pursuant to his most recent detention, ICE submitted a request for
travel documents for petitioner to the Chinese government on October 27,
2025. 	Chan Decl. [Dkt # 32-1] ¶ 7. 	More than three months later, that
request remains pending. ICE indicates that it has since received assurances
from the Chinese government that it “is working on a process to obtain travel
documents from Hong Kong.” 	Id. ¶ 8. 	The Chinese government has not,
however, provided ICE with any clear timeline for the process or even given
a rough estimate as to when ICE can expect to receive a response. Nor has it
confirmed that the process will, as ICE anticipates, result in the issuance of
travel documents – China has already once before refused to issue petitioner
travel documents (immigration officials first requested them in 2007). 	In
the face of such uncertainty, the court cannot say that petitioner’s removal is
significantly 	likely 	in 	the 	reasonably 	foreseeable 	future. 	Petitioner’s
detention accordingly is not authorized under § 1231(a)(6), and he must be
released.
Case 1:26-cv-10067-RGS Document 34 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
As an alternative, ICE represents that it is now considering removing
petitioner to Vietnam instead of China. The problem is this: Even assuming
Vietnam is a viable and willing country of removal, ICE will need to amend
the existing order of removal and submit a request for travel documents to
the Vietnamese government before any removal could occur. 	This process
may take months to complete, if indeed it can be completed at all – certainly,
it is not likely to be resolved in the reasonably foreseeable future.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS that petitioner be
transported 	back 	to 	the 	District 	of 	Massachusetts 	and 	released 	from
detention (subject to the terms and conditions of release previously imposed
by the Immigration Court prior to his present incarceration) by 12:00 pm on
Wednesday, February 4, 2026. 	The government shall file a certificate of
compliance with the court’s order by close of business on Thursday, February
5, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns____________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-10067-RGS Document 34 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 4