District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-12156

#1

May 12, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11739620 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Mungisila Mambueni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Declaration of Mungisila Mambueni, # 2 Exhibit 2, Order of the Immigration Judge, # 3 Exhibit 3, Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, # 4 Exhibit 4, Notice to Alien of File Custody Review, # 5 Exhibit 5, Request to Release Mr. Mambueni on an Order of Supervision and Supporting Documentation, # 6 Exhibit 6, Decision to Continue Detention, # 7 Category Form, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ciachurski, Julia) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#2

May 13, 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 Donald L. Cabell. (LBO) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

#3

May 13, 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: 05/13/2026)

#4

May 13, 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 May 20, 2026. (Attachments: # 1 *SEALED* Appendix) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

#5

May 13, 2026

Copies of the following were mailed to David Wesling, Antone Moniz, Todd Lyons and Markwayne Mullin on 5/13/2026: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

May 13, 2026

Copy Mailed

May 13, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

May 20, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

May 20, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#8

May 20, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 7 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to May 22, 2026 to File Response/Reply to Habeas Petition Responses due 5/22/2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/20/2026)

May 20, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#9

May 22, 2026

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

#10

May 26, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner is given leave to file a reply brief on or before June 2, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Order

#11

Jun 01, 2026

Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance

#12

Jun 01, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#13

Jun 01, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#14

Jun 01, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 13 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 06/05/2026 to File Response/Reply as to 10 Order (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

Jun 01, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#15

Jun 10, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Mungisila Mambueni, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 12, 2026 seeking an order of immediate release from detention. ECF 1, ¶¶ 3, 6. After the respondents opposed Mambueni’s petition, ECF 9, the Court granted Mambueni leave to file a reply by June 5, 2026. ECF 10 (granting leave to reply by June 2, 2026); ECF 14 (granting extension of time to June 5, 2026). As of June 10, 2026, no reply brief has been filed. For the reasons that follow, Mambueni’s petition will be DENIED, and this Court’s Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal, ECF 4, will be VACATED.Mambueni entered the United States on March 10, 2019 in Laredo, Texas. ECF 1-1, ¶ 5; ECF 9-1, ¶ 7. After determining that Mambueni was not in possession of a valid travel document, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued him a Notice to Appear charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and released him. ECF 9-1, ¶ 8. In August 2019, Mambueni timely filed an asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. ECF 1-1, ¶ 7. On February 1, 2023, an Immigration Judge denied all of his applications for relief and ordered him removed to the DRC. Id. ¶ 8; ECF 9-1, ¶ 9; ECF 1-2, at 5. Mambueni subsequently filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on March 2, 2023. ECF 1-1, ¶ 8; ECF 9-1, ¶ 10. On August 1, 2025, before the BIA ruled on his appeal, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained Mambueni while he was leaving a laundromat near his home. ECF 1-1, ¶ 9; ECF 9-1, ¶ 11. About two months later, on September 24, 2025, the BIA dismissed his appeal, and his order of removal became final. ECF 9-1, ¶ 12; ECF 1, ¶ 19; ECF 1-3. Mambueni has remained in ICE custody since his August 1, 2025 detention and is currently detained at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. ECF 1, ¶ 6; ECF 9-1, ¶ 5.Mambueni concedes that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) but claims that his continued detention violates the Fifth Amendment because he has been detained for over eight months following the entry of his final order of removal and “there is no significant likelihood of [his] removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” ECF 1, ¶¶ 26-27, 30 (quotation marks omitted). In the alternative, Mambueni argues that even if the court “finds removal is reasonably foreseeable,” it should “still order release” because he “is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk.” Id. ¶¶ 29, 34-35, 37. In response, the respondents contend that Mambueni’s order of removal became final on September 24, 2025, and that Section 1231(a)(6) and Supreme Court precedent permit his continued detention because his “removal is imminent and has been attempted unsuccessfully due to [Mambueni’s] noncompliance on multiple occasions prior to the filing of [this petition].” ECF 9, at 1.The Supreme Court has “recognized detention during deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process” under the Fifth Amendment, Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003), and held that six months is a “presumptively reasonable period of detention” pursuant to Section 1231, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). After those six months, noncitizens like Mambueni may be released if they “‘provid[e] good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future’” and the respondents fail to “rebut that showing.” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 529 (2021) (quoting id.).Mambueni has not met his burden to demonstrate that his ongoing detention violates the laws or Constitution of the United States. It is undisputed that Mambueni is subject to a final order of removal. The removal order became final when his appeal was dismissed by the BIA on September 24, 2025. 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a). That day, he became subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(1)-(2) for 90 days—until December 23, 2025—during the removal period. Upon the conclusion of that period, he remained under continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). At present, Mambueni is still within “the presumptively reasonable six-month post-removal period set out in Zadvydas,” which ends on June 23, 2026. G.P. v. Garland, 103 F.4th 898, 902 (1st Cir. 2024). But even if he were past that presumptively reasonable six-month period, Mambueni fails to demonstrate that his “removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable,” such that his detention violates his due process rights. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699, 701. ICE Acting Assistant Field Office Director Brian Sullivan attests that ICE obtained a valid travel document from the DRC for Mambueni on March 17, 2026 and made multiple attempts to execute his removal order before the filing of this petition, each of which was hindered by Mambueni. ECF 9-1, ¶¶ 15-18. In particular, Sullivan represents that ICE attempted to execute Mambueni’s removal on May 4, 2026, but could not do so because Mambueni “refus[ed] to leave his cell for transport.” Id. ¶ 16. ICE attempted to remove him again on May 12, 2026, but Mambueni “refus[ed] to board the plane, yelling and sitting on the floor at the terminal gate.” Id. ¶ 18. That same day, Mambueni filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See ECF 1 . Sullivan further represents that ICE “remains ready to effectuate the removal of the Petitioner upon providing adequate notice to this court, barring any orders staying his removal.” Id. ¶ 19. This evidence collectively establishes that Mambueni’s removal is reasonably foreseeable, and Mambueni provides no evidence of his own to rebut the respondents’ declaration.Even so, Mambueni argues that the Court should release him because “[t]here is no special justification that outweighs [his] liberty interests” where declarations attached to his petition attest that “[h]e is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk.” ECF 1, ¶¶ 35, 37; ECF 1-5. The respondents counter that Mambueni’s interference with their attempts to effectuate his removal belie any argument that he is not a flight risk and support a finding that he is lawfully detained under Section 1231(a)(6).The respondents have the better argument. In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court explained that the critical question before federal courts reviewing the detention of petitioners like Mambueni is whether the “particular circumstances amoun[t] to detention within, or beyond, a period reasonably necessary to secure removal.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700-01. In addition to his attestations that Mambueni hindered two lawful attempts to execute his removal, Sullivan further represents that Mambueni “failed to comply with removal efforts by refusing to complete his travel document application for the Consulate of the [DRC].” ECF 9-1, ¶ 13. Considering those facts and the imminence of Mambueni’s removal, the Court concludes that Mambueni’s detention is “within . . . a period reasonably necessary to secure [his] removal” and is therefore not a violation of his due process rights. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700-01.Accordingly, Mambueni’s habeas petition, ECF 1, is DENIED without prejudice, and the Court’s Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay of Transfer or Removal, ECF 4, is VACATED. The respondents are ORDERED to file a status report within one week of Mambueni’s removal, confirming that he has been removed, or on July 10, 2026, detailing the status of Mambueni’s removal, whichever is earlier. Should Mambueni remain in ICE custody by the time of the respondents’ status report on July 10, 2026, he may reassert any of the arguments made in his habeas petition that challenge his ongoing detention pending removal. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

Jun 10, 2026

Order

#16

Jul 13, 2026

Status Report

#17

Jul 13, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#18

Jul 14, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The respondents are ORDERED to respond to the petitioner's motion for immediate release, ECF 17, on or before July 20, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#19

Jul 14, 2026

Status Report

Jul 14, 2026

Order

#20

Jul 20, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Jul 20, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#22

Jul 22, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#23

Jul 23, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#24

Jul 30, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.Petitioner Mungisila Mambueni’s motion for immediate release, ECF 17, is DENIED. On June 10, 2026, this Court denied Mambueni’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, concluding that he was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and that his detention comported with due process. ECF 15 . The Court further ordered the respondents to “file a status report within one week of Mambueni’s removal, confirming that he has been removed, or on July 10, 2026, detailing the status of Mambueni’s removal, whichever is earlier.” Id. The Order also stated that “[s]hould Mambueni remain in ICE custody by the time of the respondents’ status report on July 10, 2026, he may reassert any of the arguments made in his habeas petition.” Id.On July 13, 2026, Mambueni filed his motion for immediate release, arguing that it has been twenty days since the “presumptively reasonable” six-month period of detention, and his continued detention violates due process. ECF 17, at 1-2 (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001)). Opposing his motion, the respondents argue that “there is still a significant likelihood of removal in reasonably foreseeable future.” ECF 22, at 1. The Court agrees. While post-removal detention for six months is “presumptively reasonable,” the Supreme Court further explained that a noncitizen “may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Beyond six months, an individual seeking release must show “there is good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. Mambueni argues that there is not significant likelihood of removal because the respondents acknowledge there is a lack of available flights. ECF 23, at 1. However, Mambueni was transferred to Louisiana on June 22, 2026 in anticipation of an available flight, and his travel document remains valid until September 12, 2026. ECF 22, at 2. The respondents represent that they need an additional thirty days to effectuate Mambueni’s removal. Id. Considering those facts and the continuing likelihood that Mambueni will be removed to the Democratic Republic of Congo before the expiration of his travel document, the Court concludes that Mambueni’s detention is “within . . . a period reasonably necessary to secure [his] removal” and is therefore not a violation of his due process rights. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700-01.The Court notes that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is trying to avoid using commercial means to remove Mambueni, in part because he “was non-compliant with removal efforts in the past.” ECF 22, at 2; see also ECF 9, at 3. Mambueni’s failure to cooperate with removal efforts does not render his removal “no longer reasonably foreseeable.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699; see Agbanyo v. Cabral, 518 F. Supp. 2d 326, 328 (D. Mass. 2007) (dismissing habeas petition where petitioner “failed to cooperate” and “actively obstructed efforts to remove him”).Accordingly, Mambueni’s motion for immediate release is DENIED. The respondents are ORDERED to file a further status report within 4 days of Mambueni’s removal, or by September 13, 2026, whichever is earlier. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

Jul 30, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief