Olawale-Bankole v. Bondi et al

1 26-cv-1229-AGS-BLM
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
Ibrahim Olawale BANKOLE,
Petitioner,
v.
Pam BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1229-AGS-BLM
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Ibrahim Bankole seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to
free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is
sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary
dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038,
1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is
not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
In November 2022, Bankole, a “citizen and national of Nigeria,” “arrived in the
United States” and “was detained by U.S. Border Patrol.” (ECF 1, at 6–7.) After “forty-
eight days in immigration custody,” Bankole was released “on parole after” his custodians
concluded “that he did not pose a danger to the community and did not present a flight
risk.” (Id. at 7.) “After his release,” Bankole “consistently complied with all immigration
court requirements” and was permitted “to remain at liberty for nearly three years without
placing him in immigration detention” while he moved through the immigration court
system. (Id. at 7–8.) On January 22, 2026, Bankole appeared for “a check-in and
information update” and was taken into custody. (Id. at 8.) Bankole claims his liberty was
Case 3:26-cv-01229-AGS-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 26-cv-1229-AGS-BLM
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
“revoked without advance notice, without an opportunity to be heard, and without any
individualized determination made before a neutral decisionmaker.” (Id. at 9.) This loss of
liberty, he claims, “violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” (Id. at 14.)
This challenge merits an answer. District courts have ordered petitioners released on
similar grounds. See, e.g., Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, __ F. Supp. 3d. __, No. 25-cv-06487-
PCP, 2025 WL 2935630, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025); (“[Petitioners] have demonstrated
a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment entitles them to a hearing before ICE may re-detain them.”); Salazar v. Casey,
No. 25-cv-2784 JLS (VET), 2025 WL 3063629, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025) (granting
habeas relief because respondents failed to provide “proper notice, reasoning, and a
pre-deprivation hearing,” and thus “detained Petitioner . . . in violation of the Due Process
Clause”); Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 24-cv-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511, at *7 (E.D. N.Y.
Oct. 6, 2025) (“When Respondents placed [petitioner] under arrest without notice and an
opportunity to be heard,” and “then imprisoned him . . . without a pre-deprivation bond
hearing, they violated his established right to procedural due process.”).
By March 3, 2026, the government must file its return. Any traverse is due March 4,
2026, and the Court will hold a hearing on March 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Dated: February 27, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-01229-AGS-BLM Document 2 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2