Cakan v. McDonald, Jr.
1:25-cv-11094
D. Mass.May 19, 2025Background
- Cagatay Cakan, a Turkish national and U.S. lawful permanent resident since 2001, frequently traveled abroad for business and spent much of his time outside the country.
- After returning from a month-long trip abroad in April 2025 and presenting a valid green card and Turkish passport, Cakan was detained at Boston Logan Airport by CBP, who classified him as an applicant for admission rather than a returning LPR, alleging abandonment of LPR status.
- Cakan was placed in mandatory detention pending removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), though no Immigration Judge had adjudicated whether he truly abandoned his LPR status.
- Cakan filed a habeas petition arguing unlawful detention and seeking release, claiming that only an Immigration Judge (not a CBP officer at the port of entry) can find that an LPR has abandoned residency.
- The government contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the detention and that the CBP officer had authority to classify Cakan as an applicant for admission and detain him.
- The court granted the habeas petition, ordering Cakan's immediate release and holding that determination of abandonment of LPR status must occur in removal proceedings, not by executive action at the border.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of District Court to Hear Habeas Petition | Section 1252(b)(9) does not bar review of ongoing detention claims separate from removal proceedings | District court lacks jurisdiction; claim arises from removal proceedings | District court has jurisdiction over detention challenge |
| Authority to Determine Abandonment of LPR Status at Port of Entry | Only an Immigration Judge can determine abandonment after a hearing | CBP officer has authority to make abandonment determination at entry | Only Immigration Judge can make abandonment finding |
| Lawfulness of Detention Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) | Cakan is not an applicant for admission and thus not subject to mandatory detention | He is an applicant for admission and properly detained | Cakan is not an applicant for admission; detention unlawful |
| Burden of Proof for Abandonment | Government bears heavy burden in Immigration Court | LPR must prove admissibility at port of entry | Government must prove abandonment; due process required |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (discusses detention and jurisdiction over immigration detention claims)
- Katebi v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 463 (1st Cir. 2005) (LPRs' right to return and burden of proof for abandonment)
- Aguilar v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enforcement Div. of Dep't of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (Section 1252(b)(9) does not preclude district court review of some claims)
- Mahmoud v. Barr, 981 F.3d 122 (1st Cir. 2020) (government’s burden of proof in abandonment of LPR status)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) (due process protections for LPRs)
- De Vega v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2007) (LPRs not seeking admission unless statutory exceptions apply)