Orji, Michael v. Warden, FCI Oxford et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MICHAEL AFRAM ORJI,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI OXFORD; and IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-300-jdp
Petitioner Michael Orji, proceeding without counsel, renews his request for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I denied his initial petition without prejudice because
he wanted an unspecified amount of time to communicate with his attorney about his
immigration proceedings. Dkt. 13, at 1.1 Orji asked to reopen his case, and I granted his
request, Dkt. 17, but Orji moved to strike his updated petition, so I directed the clerk of court
to close the case, Dkt. 20. Orji again moved to reopen his case, and I granted his request.
Dkt. 23.
In his updated petition, Orji contends that he has earned First Step Act (FSA) time
credits entitling him to placement in prerelease custody or early transfer to supervised release.
Dkt. 22, at 1. Orji’s own evidence shows that he is the subject of a final order of removal, which
disqualifies him from applying FSA time credits toward placement in prerelease custody or
early transfer to supervised release. So I will deny his petition.
1 Citations to filings from the docket use the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF, not the page
numbers in the original document.
Case: 3:24-cv-00300-jdp Document #: 29 Filed: 01/26/26 Page 1 of 4

2
BACKGROUND
Orji is a native of Nigeria. Dkt. 2, at 1. In 2012, an immigration judge ordered that Orji
be removed to Nigeria. Dkt. 22, Ex. 2. Orji did not appeal the removal order. Dkt. 22, at 2.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement neither deported nor removed Orji to Nigeria; instead,
it placed him under its supervision. Dkt. 22, Ex. 3, at 2. In 2013, Orji filed an application for
a certificate of citizenship with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), which denied Orji’s application after determining that he had not derived citizenship
from his mother. Dkt. 27, ¶ 17. Orji filed another application in 2024, Dkt. 22, Ex. 4, but
USCIS rejected it because of USCIS’s denial of his first application, see Dkt. 27, ¶ 18.
Orji is serving a term of 120 months, with five years of supervised release, based on a
2019 conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for conspiracy
to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. United States v. Orji,
No. 18-cr-68 (D.D.C.), Dkt. 42. Orji is incarcerated at FCI-Oxford and has a projected release
date of July 9, 2026. Dkt. 22, at 1. He has earned a total of 615 FSA credits; if Orji is eligible
to apply those credits, 365 of them could go towards early supervised release, and the remaining
250 time credits could go towards early placement in prerelease custody.
ANALYSIS
The FSA establishes a “risk and needs assessment system,” which allows prisoners who
successfully participate in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive
activities to earn credits to be applied toward time in prerelease custody or supervised release.
18 U.S.C. §§ 3632(a); see id., § 3632(d)(4)(A), (C). But the FSA prohibits the Bureau of Prisons
from applying earned-time credits toward prerelease custody or supervised release if the
Case: 3:24-cv-00300-jdp Document #: 29 Filed: 01/26/26 Page 2 of 4

3
prisoner is “the subject of a final order of removal under any provision of the immigration
laws.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i); see also 28 C.F.R. § 523.44(a)(2). An order of removal
becomes final when the 30-day period for appealing the order to the Board of Immigration
Appeals expires. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b).
Orji attached to his petition an order of removal entered against him on May 9, 2012.
Dkt. 22, Ex. 2. Orji had until June 8, 2012, to appeal this removal order. Orji admits that he
did not do so. Dkt. 22, at 2. Thus, Orji is subject to a final order of removal, and he is ineligible
to apply earned-time credits toward prerelease custody or supervised release.
Orji resists this conclusion. He contends that the final order of removal is “old, expired,
invalid, and not reinstated.” Id. True, the removal order is more than a decade old, but it has
not expired. Generally, once an order of removal becomes final, the Attorney General has
90 days to remove the individual subject to that removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A).
When, as here, the individual is not removed within the removal period, the individual is
subject to supervision by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See id. § 1231(a)(3). But this
supervision is “pending removal.” Id.
Orji’s 2012 removal order remains in effect. It has not been reinstated, as Orji contends,
because reinstatement applies only when “an alien has reentered the United States illegally
after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order of removal.” Id.
§ 1231(a)(5). In those circumstances, the prior order of removal is “reinstated from its original
date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” Id. Orji has not been removed from the
United States, so reinstatement is inapplicable.
Orji’s removal order is also not invalid. If Orji believed the removal order to be
erroneous, he should have appealed it to the Board of Immigration Appeals. He did not do so.
Case: 3:24-cv-00300-jdp Document #: 29 Filed: 01/26/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Nor did he ask the relevant court of appeals to review the order of removal within 30 days after
it became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
Finally, Orji contends that his removal order does not apply because he is seeking
asylum. See Dkt. 22, at 2–3. But his removal order remains in effect unless and until he prevails
in his proceedings before the immigration courts or a court of appeals. See Kavaja v. Emmerich,
No. 24-cv-620-wmc, 2025 WL 472876, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 14, 2025).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Michael Orji’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, Dkt. 22, is DENIED.
2. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
Entered January 26, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00300-jdp Document #: 29 Filed: 01/26/26 Page 4 of 4