Misigaro v. Westling et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
OLIVIER MISIGARO,
Petitioner,
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-10298-IT
v. 	*
*
DAVID WESLING, Acting Boston Field
Office Director, Enforcement and Removal
Operations, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; JOSEPH D. MCDONALD, JR.,
Sheriff, Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office;
ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent, Plymouth
County Correctional Facility; PATRICIA
HYDE, Field Office Director of Enforcement
and Removal Operations, Boston Field Office;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; TODD LYONS,
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and PAMELA
BONDI, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
February 6, 2026
TALWANI, D.J.
Petitioner Olivier Misigaro, a citizen of Rwanda who has been detained for more than
one year by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), challenges his detention as
unlawful. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1]. Respondents concede that the legal and
factual issues appear similar to those examined by another session of this court in Siguenza v.
Moniz, 2025 WL 2734704, at *3 (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2025), where both matters involve a
petitioner who had been ordered removed from the United States, but who has also been awarded
withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention against Torture (“CAT”),
Case 1:26-cv-10298-IT Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 6

2
prohibiting his removal to his home country. Abbreviated Resp. to Habeas Pet. and Request to
Proceed without Additional Briefing or Arg. 2 [Doc. No. 9]. Respondents request that, if the
court grants the Petition, the court order Petitioner released pursuant to an “Order of
Supervision” as authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). Resp’ts’ Opp’n 2 [Doc. No. 9]. Petitioner
does not object to an “Order of Supervision” but requests that the court order those conditions to
be “reasonable.” Pet.’s Reply 2 [Doc. No. 10].
Finding the ongoing detention unconstitutional where Respondents have offered no
evidence of any plan to remove Petitioner in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Petition is
GRANTED, with release pursuant to an Order of Supervision.1
I. 	Background
Shortly after entering the United States in July 2019 on a temporary business and tourism
visa, Petitioner moved to Maine. Pet. ¶ 37 [Doc. No. 1]. After his temporary visa expired,
Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. Id. ¶ 38;
Pet. Ex. C, at ECF 2 [Doc. No. 1-4].
In January 2025, ICE detained Petitioner. Pet. ¶ 24 [Doc. No. 1]. On March 26, 2025, an
Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and ordered that he be removed.
Pet. Ex. C, at ECF 2 [Doc. No. 1-4]. However, the Immigration Judge also found that
Petitioner’s life or freedom would be threatened should he be returned to Rwanda and restricted
his removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Id.; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (the
government “may not remove an alien to a country if [the government] decides that the alien’s
life or freedom would be threatened in that country . . . .”). Subsequently, ICE attempted to
remove Petitioner to several “third countries,” none of which would accept him. Pet. ¶ 41 [Doc.
1 The court declines to set limits on the conditions of release.
Case 1:26-cv-10298-IT Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 6

3
No. 1]; Pet. Ex. D, at ECF 2–3 [Doc. No. 1-5].
On June 27, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the District
of Maine, challenging his detention and seeking release or access to pending criminal
proceedings in Maine state court. Pet. ¶ 11 [Doc. No. 1]; see Misigaro v. Hyde, Case No. 2:25-
cv-00339-LEW, Doc. No. 1 (June. 27, 2025). The parties reached an agreement regarding
Petitioner’s access to the pending state court proceedings, and the Petition was voluntarily
dismissed. Pet. ¶ 11 [Doc. No. 1]; see also Misigaro, Case No. 2:25-cv-00339-LEW, Doc. No. 14
(July 3, 2025).
On September 23, 2025, Petitioner participated in an ICE custody review interview, a
process through which ICE considers whether to release a noncitizen detainee. Pet. Ex. E, at ECF
2–3 [Doc. No. 1-6].
On October 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a renewed Petition in the District of Maine,
challenging the reasonableness of the length of his detention. Pet. ¶ 12 [Doc. No. 1]; see
Misigaro v. Hyde, Case No. 2:25-cv-00538-LEW, Doc. No. 1 (Oct. 24, 2025). That court issued
a general writ ad testificandum / ad prosequendum ordering ICE to facilitate Petitioner’s
attendance and participation in his pending state court proceedings but denied Petitioner’s claim
for immediate release. Misigaro v. Hyde, 2025 WL 3140715, at *1, *4 (D. Me. Nov. 10, 2025).2
In December 2025, Petitioner was acquitted in Maine state court of aggravated assault
2 The District of Maine court found that although ICE had detained Petitioner for longer than six
months beyond the effective date of his removal order and Petitioner had circumstantially
demonstrated that his removal to a third country presented an administrative challenge that is
unlikely to be accomplished in the near term, release was not warranted because of: “(1) the fact
that Petitioner filed his Petition immediately following expiration of the presumptively
reasonable detention period; (2) the pendency of an administrative review process that should
conclude shortly, presumably by year’s end; and (3) the quite serious state court charges pending
against Petitioner, including an aggravated assault charge and charges of violating bail
conditions . . . .” Misigaro, 2025 WL 3140715, at *4.
Case 1:26-cv-10298-IT Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 6

4
against his ex-wife and misdemeanor domestic assault against his daughter but was convicted of
misdemeanor domestic assault against his ex-wife. Decl. of Pet’r’s Defense Att’y ¶ 4 [Doc. No.
8]. Petitioner is scheduled to be sentenced in the Maine state court proceeding on February 23,
2026. Id. ¶ 7.3
On January 22, 2026, ICE transferred Petitioner from the Cumberland County Jail in
Portland, Maine, to the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, in the District of Massachusetts,
where he is presently detained. Pet. ¶¶ 23–24 [Doc. No. 1]. To date, ICE has not informed
Petitioner of its decision regarding the review process that commenced in September 2025. Id. ¶
43; Pet. Ex. E, at ECF 2 [Doc No. 1-6].
II. 	Discussion
Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] on January
23, 2026. He asserts the following: (1) Respondents’ unreasonably long detention of Petitioner
violates his Fifth Amendment rights where Respondents lack reasonably foreseeable plans to
remove him; (2) Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioner violates the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), for the same reasons; and (3) Respondents’ detention and
transfer of Petitioner violates his Sixth Amendment rights to participate in the state court
proceedings. Pet. ¶¶ 57–73 [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner seeks either immediate release or an order
requiring ICE to transport Petitioner to Maine state court for scheduled proceedings. Id. at ECF
15.
As the District of Maine court explained,
The legal framework governing post-removal-period detention is set by statute.
After expiration of a 90-day removal period, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), the
United States can continue to detain certain classes of aliens by law, see id.
3 Petitioner’s defense counsel states that he and the prosecutor have agreed to a 45-day sentence
for the misdemeanor conviction. Decl. of Pet’r’s Defense Att’y ¶ 8 [Doc. No. 8]. The record is
silent as to the disposition of the bail violation charges.
Case 1:26-cv-10298-IT Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 6

5
§ 1231(a)(6). However, generally speaking, absent cause for continued detention,
the United States should release aliens from custody subject to appropriate terms of
supervision. In Zadvydas [v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)], the Supreme Court read
“an implicit limitation into” § 1231(a)(6), and held that “the statute, read in light of
the Constitution’s demands, limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a
period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United
States [and] does not permit indefinite detention.” 533 U.S. at 689. The Zadvydas
Court also adopted a 6-month “presumptively reasonable period of detention.” Id.
at 701]. “After this 6-month period, once the alien provides good reason to believe
that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that
showing.” Id.
Misigaro, 2025 WL 3140715, at *3.
Petitioner has now been detained for more than ten months beyond the effective date of
his removal order issued March 26, 2025, and for over a year in total. Pet. ¶¶ 23–24 [Doc. No.
1]; Pet. Ex. C, at ECF 2 [Doc. No. 1-4]. Petitioner has met his burden to “provide good reason to
believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,”
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, where he may not be removed to his home country and none of the
several “third countries” to which ICE attempted to remove Petitioner would accept him,
Pet. ¶ 41 [Doc. No. 1]; Pet. Ex. D, at ECF 2-3 [Doc. No. 1-5]. Respondents have failed to
respond with any contrary evidence, let alone evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. See
Resp’ts’ Opp’n 1–2 [Doc. No. 9]. Accordingly, the court finds continued detention of Petitioner
pursuant to subsection 1231(a)(6) to be unconstitutional. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689 (holding
that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), “read in light of the Constitution’s demands, limits an alien’s post-
removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal
from the United States.”).
III. 	Conclusion
Where ICE has detained Petitioner for more than ten months beyond entry of his final
order of removal, Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant
Case 1:26-cv-10298-IT Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 6

6
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and Respondents have failed to
offer any evidence to the contrary, the court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Doc. No. 1]. Petitioner shall be transported to Maine and released from ICE custody
subject to an order of supervision, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(3), (6). Respondents shall
submit a status report on this matter no later than February 13, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 6, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-10298-IT Document 11 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 6