Rihan Shinwari v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

No. 3:26-CV-514 (VDO) · United States District Court for the District of Connecticut · April 11, 2026 · No. 3:26-CV-514 (VDO)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut holds that it lacks jurisdiction over Rihan Shinwari’s habeas petition challenging his ICE detention because he was physically located in Massachusetts when the petition was filed. Relying on Second Circuit precedent and 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the court concludes that the District of Massachusetts is the proper venue and orders the case transferred there.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Writing for the Court
Vernon D. Oliver
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Decision date
April 11, 2026
Docket number
3:26-CV-514 (VDO)
Procedural posture
Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his immigration detention in the District of Connecticut. After Petitioner was transferred to a detention facility in Massachusetts, the court ordered briefing on whether it possessed jurisdiction and, concluding that it did not, transferred the case to the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Precedential value
Unknown
Parties
Rihan Shinwari, Petitioner v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Hartford Field Office; Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondents
Disposition
remanded

Topics

federal habeas corpussubject matter jurisdictionvenueimmigration detentioncivil procedure

Practice areas

immigrationfederal habeas corpuscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. For a core habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging present physical custody, which district is the district of confinement when the petitioner is physically in transit and is located in another district at the time the petition is filed?
  2. Whether the District of Connecticut had jurisdiction over the petition or should transfer it to the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Holdings

  1. For a core habeas petition challenging present physical custody, jurisdiction lies in the district where the petitioner is physically located when the petition is filed, even if the petitioner is in transit and the immediate custodian is not yet known.
  2. When a court lacks jurisdiction, it should transfer the action under § 1631 if the action could have been brought in the transferee court at filing and transfer is in the interest of justice.

Key quotations

At the time the petition in this case was filed, that “one district” was the District of Massachusetts, where Petitioner was in transit to PCCF and where he has remained since.
Thus, because Petitioner was physically in Massachusetts when his habeas petition was filed, the District of Massachusetts is the proper venue for his petition, regardless of whether Petitioner’s counsel knew at the time of filing who his custodian would be.

Factual background

Petitioner, an eighteen-year-old Afghan citizen with humanitarian parole and pending asylum and adjustment-of-status applications, was detained by ICE in Connecticut on April 6, 2026. ICE officers claimed his parole had expired, although his travel documents reflected a later expiration date, and transported him through Connecticut before crossing into Massachusetts. Petitioner was booked into the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Massachusetts at 1:22 P.M. and remained there when the court decided jurisdiction.

Procedural history

ICE detained Petitioner in Connecticut on April 6, 2026, and transported him to the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Massachusetts. Petitioner filed the habeas petition while he was in transit and before counsel knew his precise location. The District of Connecticut issued interim orders restricting further removal while considering jurisdiction, then granted Respondents' request to transfer the matter to the District of Massachusetts.

Remand instructions

The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…