- A federal judge dismissed the habeas petition of a Babson student due to jurisdictional issues.
- The court ruled the case belonged in Texas because that is where the student was detained.
- Attorney Todd Pomerleau immediately filed an appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
(BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS) — U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns dismissed Any Lucia Lopez Belloza’s habeas corpus petition on Friday, March 6, 2026, ruling that the Massachusetts federal court lacked jurisdiction because she was detained in Texas.
Stearns issued the order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts after the government argued the case belonged in Texas, where immigration authorities held the 20-year-old Babson College student after her apprehension at Boston’s Logan Airport.
The dismissal kept the court from reaching the merits of Lopez Belloza’s challenge to her detention and deportation, and it turned the dispute into a fight over where, and against whom, a detainee can press a habeas claim when immigration custody spans multiple states.
Attorney Todd C. Pomerleau filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals immediately after the dismissal. He said the filing in Boston was appropriate because ICE did not disclose Lopez Belloza’s location and because a government flight offer amounted to a “trap” to re-detain and deport her again, as indicated in government documents.
Pomerleau has added a corporate law firm with 1,300 lawyers to the team. “We really have great litigation opportunity now for Any and many others,” he said.
The case traces back to Lopez Belloza’s encounter with immigration authorities at Logan Airport in November 2025, when she was attempting to fly to her family in Austin, Texas, for Thanksgiving. The court filings described her as detained after that stop and then moved to a detention facility in Texas.
After her apprehension, Lopez Belloza’s counsel was retained the same day, Stearns wrote, but he found the lawyers had enough time to file in Massachusetts before she was transferred to Texas and did not. The judge’s order treated her location of confinement as decisive for jurisdiction.
Stearns also pointed to a flight offer that the government arranged for Lopez Belloza the previous week, and which she declined. He concluded that decision eliminated what he described as the remaining basis for jurisdiction in Massachusetts, writing that the government’s compliance with an earlier February 2026 order to facilitate her return dissolved any civil contempt claims.
That sequence placed procedural timing at the center of the ruling. In Stearns’ view, counsel’s ability to act before the transfer did not preserve the Massachusetts court’s authority once she was held in Texas.
The judge’s dismissal reflected the government’s position that a habeas petition must be brought where the person is detained and against the appropriate official tied to that custody. The government argued the Texas detention made Texas the proper place for the case.
Stearns accepted that framing, and his order treated Lopez Belloza’s confinement in Texas as a jurisdictional barrier that the Massachusetts filing could not overcome. He also treated her refusal of the government-arranged return flight as a waiver of what remained of the court’s jurisdictional footing.
Pomerleau’s appeal tees up those questions for the First Circuit, including the practical problem of filing in the correct place when a person’s whereabouts change quickly in immigration custody. His argument also disputes the fairness of the flight offer, which he characterized as a “trap.”
Lopez Belloza’s lawyers have described the litigation as turning in part on ICE’s handling of information about her location. Pomerleau contends ICE did not disclose where she was held, a claim that goes to whether her lawyers could realistically file where the government insists the case belonged.
The case also includes a dispute over what the government did to comply with the earlier February 2026 order. Stearns wrote that the government’s compliance with that order to facilitate her return dissolved any civil contempt claims, and he treated that as removing a jurisdictional hook for the Massachusetts court.
Lopez Belloza’s background has been a constant part of how her lawyers and local coverage described the stakes. She entered the U.S. from Honduras at age eight in 2014, and an immigration judge issued a removal order in 2015.
In statements reported by GBH News, Lopez Belloza said she feared what might happen if she were detained again and how that would affect her education. “Not knowing what would happen to me—brought me a lot of fear because I don’t know in what type of hands that I’d be landing into,” she told the outlet.
Lopez Belloza has no criminal record. She is taking Babson classes remotely from her grandparents’ home in Honduras, according to GBH News.
The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged her deportation occurred because of an error by an ICE officer. DHS said the deportation happened due to an ICE officer’s failure to activate an alert system, but it also said she “failed to appear for her prearranged flight” and has remained unlawfully in the U.S. since her 2015 removal order.
ICE has not yet responded to recent media inquiries, according to the account of the case.
The jurisdiction ruling matters because it underscores how detention transfers can reshape a case before a judge ever evaluates the underlying claims. In habeas litigation, the location of confinement and the identity of the proper respondent can determine whether a court can hear a petition at all.
Lopez Belloza’s path through Massachusetts and Texas illustrates how quickly those facts can change. She was stopped at Logan Airport, her lawyers were retained that day, and she was later detained in Texas, where the government argued she should have filed.
Stearns’ order highlighted those timelines, concluding that the opportunity to file before the transfer did not prevent dismissal once she was held in Texas. His reliance on her decision to decline the government-arranged flight added another layer, with the judge finding that choice waived the court’s remaining jurisdictional basis.
Pomerleau’s assertion that ICE did not disclose her location goes to how detainees and their lawyers can comply with venue expectations when custody is shifting. His “trap” characterization of the flight offer challenges the government’s portrayal of the return arrangement as compliance with the February 2026 order.
The dispute also touches campus communities and students who face sudden enforcement actions during an academic term. Lopez Belloza remained connected to Babson College through remote coursework while staying in Honduras with her grandparents, a fact that underscores the educational disruption at the center of her account.
Pomerleau linked the litigation to broader possibilities beyond Lopez Belloza’s case. “We really have great litigation opportunity now for Any and many others,” he said, describing the appeal as a chance to press arguments with potential relevance to others in similar situations.
The expanded legal team may affect the capacity for intensive appellate briefing and record work, though the filings themselves will determine which arguments the court considers. Pomerleau has said the addition of a corporate law firm with 1,300 lawyers strengthens the representation as the case moves to the First Circuit.
In the First Circuit, the appeal begins with docketing and the assembly of the record from the district court. The court then sets a briefing schedule, with written arguments that address what happened below and what legal standard applies.
Jurisdictional questions can end an appeal before judges reach any dispute about the underlying events. That posture can keep a case focused on where the petition belonged and whether the district court had power to act.
Parties can also seek emergency relief in an appeal, depending on what they ask the court to do and how they frame time-sensitive harm. Any such request would be considered under the First Circuit’s procedures, and it would typically be tied to the court’s authority to grant interim relief.
For Lopez Belloza, the First Circuit appeal keeps the fight alive after the Massachusetts dismissal and will test whether her lawyers can overcome the venue and custody reasoning Stearns relied upon. Her statement to GBH News captured the personal uncertainty that has accompanied the legal battle: “Not knowing what would happen to me—brought me a lot of fear because I don’t know in what type of hands that I’d be landing into.”
