Olufowara v. Noem et al

1
26-cv-690-RSH-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ADEYEMI OLUFOWARA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-690-RSH-MSB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On February 4, 2026, petitioner Adeyemi Olufowara filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), as well as a motion for a
temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Petitioner challenges the lawfulness
of his immigration detention. Respondents have filed a return. ECF No. 5. As set forth
below, the Court grants the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of Nigeria, applied for admission to the United States at the Paso
Del Norte Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas. ECF No. 5-1 ¶ 4. He lacked any entry documents,
and was taken into immigration custody and placed in removal proceedings. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. On
March 8, 2013, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to Nigeria. Id. ¶ 7.
Case 3:26-cv-00690-RSH-MSB Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-690-RSH-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioner elected not to appeal. Id. On September 17, 2013, Petitioner was released from
immigration custody on an order of supervision, because ICE was unable to obtain a travel
document for his return to Nigeria. Id. ¶ 8.
On September 3, 2025, ICE rearrested Petitioner to effectuate his removal order. Id.
¶ 10. Petitioner remains in immigration detention.
The Petition contends that (1) DHS failed to comply with its own regulations in
revoking 	Petitioner’s 	order 	of 	supervision, 	warranting 	Petitioner’s 	release 	from
immigration custody; (2) there is no significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future, such that his continued indefinite detention violates due
process; and (3) DHS should be prohibited from removing Petitioner to a country other
than Nigeria, unless DHS provides Petitioner with adequate notice and an opportunity to
be heard. Id. at 5–16.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	ANALYSIS
The detention and release of noncitizens who are subject to a final order of removal
is addressed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Under that statute, “when an alien is ordered removed,
the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90
days.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). “If the alien does not leave or is not removed within the
removal period, the alien, pending removal, shall be subject to supervision under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). Federal regulations
also prescribe the manner in which such supervision may be revoked. The regulation
applicable here requires that “[u]pn revocation” of release, “the alien will be notified of the
reasons for revocation of his or her release,” and further provide that DHS “will conduct
Case 3:26-cv-00690-RSH-MSB Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-690-RSH-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an informal interview promptly after his or her return to … custody to afford the alien an
opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification.” 8 C.F.R. §
241.13(i)(3).
Respondents, in candor, concede that Petitioner was not provided written notice of
the reasons for the revocation of his release, or an informal interview allowing Petitioner
to respond to those reasons. ECF No. 5 at 3. Respondents contend, however, that this
violation does not amount to a deprivation of due process. Id.
Government agencies are required to follow their own regulations. United States ex
rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 (1954); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 852 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts have determined that where DHS fails
to follow its own regulations in revoking release, the detention is unlawful and the
petitioner’s release must be ordered. See, e.g., Orellana v. Baker, No. 25-1788-TDC, 2025
WL 2444087, at *8 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2025); M.S.L. v. Bostock, No. 6:25-cv-1204-AA,
2025 WL 2430267, at *10 (D. Or. Aug. 21, 2025); Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer, 781 F. Supp. 3d
137, 165-66 (W.D.N.Y. 2025); Rombot v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388 (D. Mass.
2017). This Court reaches the same conclusion here.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ordered to
release petitioner Adeyemi Olufowara from custody within one (1) business day of the
date of this Order, subject to the terms of his previous order of supervision or such other
terms for release on recognizance as may be warranted. The Court declines to order further
relief. Petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED
as moot. The hearing currently scheduled for February 26, 2026 is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00690-RSH-MSB Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3