Decisions

D.R.I. September 29, 2026 Third country: Rwanda. On 17 September 2026 ICE informed him that it intended to remove him to Rwanda on or about 24 September 2026.

Disposition Petition for a writ of habeas corpus granted. Immediate release ordered on the petitioner’s order of supervision.

The petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic protected from removal there under the Convention Against Torture, had been released on an order of supervision after ICE failed to remove him to Mexico. ICE revoked the order and re-detained him on or about 4 September 2026, after what it said was a violation of his release conditions, an arrest on 31 August 2026. On 17 September 2026 it informed him that it intended to remove him to Rwanda “on or about September 24, 2026.” On 18 September 2026 the District of Massachusetts dismissed his earlier habeas petition and dissolved its stay, and he filed this petition the same day. The court noted in a footnote: “He has no connection to Rwanda or even to the continent of Africa.” The court held that the earlier habeas proceeding did not bar this petition, because it challenged a new detention arising from changed circumstances, including the government’s “newly asserted plan to remove Mr. Vittini Arias to Rwanda, not Mexico.” It accepted part of the government’s case: “the Court sides with the Government’s view that Mr. Vittini Arias’ alleged conduct violated his OSUP conditions, rendering his detention under § 241.13(i)(1) proper.” But it held that the government had not established the separate ground for revocation under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2), a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. On the evidence of removal to Rwanda the court found: “The record does not even suggest a formal agreement and acceptance by the country of Rwanda”. In a footnote it added: “A good starting point might begin with record of a Memorandum of Understanding.” It held that “reliance on diplomatic assurances does not pass muster because although assurances may bear on the feasibility of removal, they do not establish, on its own, that removal is significantly likely.” Taken together, it said, “the record does not identify a completed travel arrangement, confirmed acceptance of Mr. Vittini Arias by Rwanda, or other concrete evidence showing that his removal is imminent or otherwise significantly likely to occur.” The government relied on a declaration by Vu Cam, Acting Unit Chief from the Removal Management Division, which the court noted still relied on the Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals of 30 March 2025, and on a letter from the Deputy Secretary of State, Christopher Landau, to the Acting ICE Director, Todd Lyons, which the court described as “assuring the relationship between the two countries by referring to an undisclosed Memorandum of Understanding.” The court added: “In the meantime, it is unclear whether a flight, a manifest or any form of travel documents exist for the would-be removed detainee.” Relying on the First Circuit’s decision in D.V.D. of 18 September 2026, the court said that a third-country removal requires effective notice of the particular country and a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific fear-of-torture claim, and concluded: “Without evidence supporting a serious agreement between the United States and the government of Rwanda indicating assurances consistent with the 1st Circuit opinion in D.V.D., the Court is not prepared to continue prolonging the violation of Mr. Vittini Arias’ liberty interest.” It ordered his immediate release on his order of supervision.

Third-country removal Redetention Revocation of supervision Order of supervision Informal interview Changed circumstances Compliance with regulations Diplomatic assurances Travel documents Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) D.V.D. class action Successive habeas petition Convention Against Torture Release from custody

Caution The court ordered release; it did not enjoin removal to Rwanda. It said that its conclusion on detention “is distinct from, and does not implicate, the separate question of whether the Government may lawfully effectuate the proposed removal to Rwanda without first providing the procedural protections applicable to third-country removals.” The order is dated 29 September 2026 and relies on the First Circuit’s decision in D.V.D. On the same day the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s judgment in D.V.D. and granted certiorari, in an order recorded separately in this register. The order does not mention the Supreme Court’s action. The Cam declaration, the Landau letter and any assurances filed with the government’s response were not obtained by the Coalition; they are described here only as the court describes them.