Filed Date: Feb. 16, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a habeas corpus proceeding filed by a Cuban national who was re-detained by ICE after being issued an order of supervision. ICE announced their intent to deport the petitioner to Mexico, pursuant to a secret unwritten deal between Mexico and the United States that Mexico accept Cuban deportees.
On February 16, 2026, petitioner, a Cuban national who was detained by Immigration and Customs Patrol (ICE) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The petitioner alleged that he came to the United States from Cuba in 1992, and was issued a final order of removal in 2001, but Cuba would not accept him. ICE issued the petitioner an order of supervision in 2014, and the petitioner had complied with it since. On February 16, 2026, the petitioner was arrested and re-detained by ICE when he attended a check-in appointment at the ICE Boston Field Office. The petitioner argued that his re-detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which requires ICE to make an individualized determination that, based on changed circumstances, removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The petitioner alleged that ICE made no such finding in his case, and failed to notify him of the reasons for re-detention. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that his continued detention when ICE knows that it cannot promptly effect the petitioner’s removal from the United States and when the detention is not reasonably required to ensure the petitioner’s compliance with the terms of his order of supervision violated the INA and the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.
The court ordered a stay of transfer or removal on February 17, 2026. It ordered that the petitioner shall not be transferred to another district unless the government provides advance notice of the intended move without procedural safeguards. It further ordered that the petitioner shall not be deported, removed, or otherwise transferred outside the United States until further Order of this Court.
The defendants filed a supplemental briefing informing the court that they intended to remove the petitioner to Mexico, a third country on March 13, 2026. They stated that Mexico has a standing unwritten agreement with the United States to accept Cuban nationals for removal and that no travel document would be necessary. The supplemental briefing further stated that ICE removed approximately 6,000 Cuban nationals to Mexico in the prior year, and that based on this agreement and successful removals, removal to Cuba was considered impractical, inadvisable, or impossible.
On March 20, 2026 the petitioner filed a supplemental memorandum responding to the defendants’ briefing. Primarily, the memorandum alleges that ICE’s stated intent to remove the petitioner to Mexico, a third country with which he has no ties, was deemed unlawful and set aside by this court in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The petitioner thus argued that this policy would violate his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. In light of this development, the petitioner requested not only that the court order his immediate release from ICE custody under the conditions of his prior Order of Supervision, but also that the court order procedural protections regarding re-detention if ICE sought to effectuate removal to any third country.
On March 25, 2026, the court issued an order staying this case until the First Circuit issues its mandate in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The court also expressed concern over the alleged unwritten deal between the United States and Mexico. It stated “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." 2026 WL 816791.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sofia Yoder (4/9/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72283996/parties/juan-navarro-v-lyons/
Young, William G. (Massachusetts)
Arroyo, Heather Perez (Massachusetts)
Rodriguez, Christine A. (Massachusetts)
McMahon, Erica (Massachusetts)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72283996/juan-navarro-v-lyons/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:09 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 16, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a Cuban national who has been present in the United States since 1992.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Massachusetts 1:26-cv-10876
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Navarro v. Lyons, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47983/ (last updated 4/9/2026).