Amadi v. Frink et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CHIDI AMADI,
Petitioner,
versus
WARDEN MARTIN FRINK,
et al,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-02426
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is a petition by Petitioner Chidi Amadi for writ
of habeas corpus and a motion by the Government for
summary judgment. Dkts 1 & 8.
There’s no dispute that Petitioner lacks lawful
immigration status in the United States. But the
Government asserts a single statutory basis for its present
detention of Petitioner, being a provision with respect to
the reinstatement of a removal order. See 8 USC
§1231(a)(5). The parties agree that the legality of such
detention rises and falls on a single, disputed fact. And that
is, did Petitioner timely depart from the United States
pursuant to his grant of voluntary departure?
Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the
evidence that he did, in fact, timely depart from the United
States by the pertinent date of September 13, 2005. This in
turn means that his grant of voluntary departure did not
become a removal order, which in turn undermines present
detention pursuant to reinstatement of that purported
removal order. In short, if there never was a removal order,
there isn’t a removal order that can now be reinstated.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02426 Document 20 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

2
Detention of Petitioner under §1231(a)(5) is thus
unlawful at present. The petition will be granted, and the
motion for summary judgment will be denied. Dkts 1 & 8.
1. Background
Petitioner Chidi Amadi is a native and citizen of
Nigeria who initially entered the United States without
inspection in 1999. Dkts 1 at ¶22 & 12-1 at ¶6. He married
in 2001, and his wife then filed an I-130 petition for alien
relative on his behalf. Dkt 12-1 at ¶¶7–8. Petitioner also
applied for and received work authorizations between 2001
and 2003. Id at ¶¶9–11. But in May 2004, USCIS denied
his I-130 application and initiated removal proceedings
against him by issuing a notice to appear. Id at ¶¶13–16.
In May 2005, an immigration judge granted Petitioner
voluntary departure, to be effected on or before September
13, 2005. See Dkt 8-2 (order of voluntary departure). The
order stated in part as follows:
[I]f the respondent fails to depart as
required or fails to comply with any other
condition for voluntary departure imposed
by this order or by law or regulation, the
above order shall be withdrawn without
further notice or proceedings and the
following order shall become immediately
effective: the respondent shall be removed
to Nigeria on the charge in the Notice To
Appear.
Dkt 8-2 at 1. In effect, this meant that if Petitioner failed
to timely depart, the voluntary departure order would
become an order of removal.
The parties dispute when Petitioner departed from the
United States. Petitioner maintains that he left in advance
of the deadline of September 13, 2005, while the
Government contends that he didn’t depart until March 15,
2006. See Dkts 12-1 at ¶22 (declaration of deportation
officer) & 13-1 at ¶3 (declaration of Petitioner).
Case 4:26-cv-02426 Document 20 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

3
Apart from the dispute over when Petitioner departed,
he without question returned to the United States in April
2006 and has resided here without lawful permission since
that time. Dkt 1 at ¶¶27–28.
On December 14, 2025, Petitioner was detained by
ICE. Id at ¶30. ICE promptly issued him a notice of
intent/decision to reinstate prior order. Dkt 12-1 at ¶26; see
Dkt 13-1 at 50 (notice). He remains in ongoing immigration
proceedings.
In March 2026, Petitioner filed applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. Dkt 1
at ¶¶33–34. He represents that on March 18th, an
immigration judge concluded that he had complied with his
prior voluntary departure order, such that the original
NTA was no longer a valid charging document. Id at ¶¶35–
36. He states the IJ ordered that “if DHS intend[ed] to
pursue Petitioner’s removal, it must issue a new NTA.”
Id at ¶36.
The record also reflects that the Government did issue
Petitioner a new notice to appear on April 20, 2026. Dkts 13
at 2 & 13-1 at 28–30 (notice to appear). The Government
was thus ordered to state a position as to what effect, if
any, the new notice to appear would have on the applicable
detention authority in this action. Dkt 14. In response, the
Government indicated that the “improvidently issued”
NTA was ineffective because it hadn’t been filed with the
immigration court. Dkt 15 at 4. The Government instead
chose to stand on its position that Petitioner is detained
under §1231(a)(5). Id at 1.
In April 2026, Petitioner expressed reasonable fear of
returning to Nigeria. Dkt 12-1 at ¶27. USCIS determined
that his reasonable fear claim wasn’t credible, but an
immigration judge later vacated that determination,
finding that Petitioner “established a reasonable
possibility that [he] would be persecuted on the basis of a
protected ground, or a reasonable possibility that [he]
would be tortured in the country of removal.” Dkt 15-1
(order of immigration judge dated April 26, 2026).
Petitioner was then placed in withholding-only
Case 4:26-cv-02426 Document 20 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

4
proceedings. Ibid. No further updates on such proceedings
have been provided by the parties.
At hearing on June 22, 2026, the Government agreed
that whether Petitioner is lawfully detained under
§1231(a)(5) depends completely on whether he departed by
September 2005. Dkt 19 (minute entry). The parties were
given the opportunity to supplement the record with
further factual or legal briefing. They didn’t do so. The
action is thus ripe for decision.
2. Legal standard
To be entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 USC §2241, the petitioner must show that he is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” 28 USC §2241(c)(3). The
habeas petitioner “bears the burden of proving that he is
being held contrary to law; and because the habeas
proceeding is civil in nature, the petitioner must satisfy his
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Skaftouros v United States, 667 F3d 144, 158 (2d Cir 2011),
citing Parke v Raley, 506 US 20, 31 (1992); see also Bruce
v Estelle, 536 F2d 1051, 1058 (5th Cir 1976).
A court considering a habeas petition must “determine
the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice
require.” 28 USC §2243.
3. Analysis
As noted above, the parties dispute whether Petitioner
departed the United States by September 13, 2005.
Petitioner maintains that he complied with the grant of
voluntary departure by leaving the United States in
September 2005. Dkt 1 at ¶22. He submitted a sworn
declaration dated May 20, 2026, attesting to that fact.
Dkt 13-1 at 3.
Documentary evidence corroborates his declaration.
Petitioner submitted a commercial airline itinerary
reflecting the purchase of a ticket in his name for a flight
on September 13, 2005, from Houston, Texas to Paris,
France, followed by a connecting flight to Lagos, Nigeria,
on September 14, 2005. Dkt 10-1 at 13. His passport
Case 4:26-cv-02426 Document 20 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

5
likewise bears an admission stamp from Nigeria dated
September 14, 2005, consistent with that itinerary. Id
at 15–18. A report prepared by a United States consular
officer following an interview with Petitioner in Nigeria on
March 15, 2006, also records his unlawful presence in the
United States as running from December 1999 to
September 2005. Id at 19–21.
The Government contends to the contrary that
Petitioner didn’t depart until March 15, 2006. It submitted
the declaration of Deporatation Officer Adedeji Akinyemi,
which states in relevant part:
On March 15, 2006, [Petitioner] departed
the US via Houston, Texas. ERO believe
this to be true based on an ERO database
check that indicates the Nigerian
Consulate reported the departure. ERO
also indicated this date on the I-205—
Warrant of Removal/Deportation that was
issued on September 20, 2025. Further,
[Petitioner] affirmed the March 2006 date
in a sworn declaration he filed with the
immigration court.
Today, [Petitioner] asserts that he left the
US on September 13, 2005. ERO has
investigated this claim by looking at
various US government databases.
Specifically, ERO has checked the system
used for passenger vetting known as
Unified Passenger or UPAX. ERO was
unable to find any entries related to
[Petitioner’s] alleged departure in 2005.
ERO was unable to find any entries related
to [Petitioner’s] actual departure.
Dkt 12-1 at ¶¶22–23 (cleaned up).
The declaration acknowledges, at least implicitly, that
the Government couldn’t locate any travel-related data
confirming the date of Petitioner’s actual departure from
the United States. As such, its assertion that Petitioner
Case 4:26-cv-02426 Document 20 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

6
departed in March 2006 is based on (i) a database entry
based on a report by the Nigerian Consulate, and (ii)
Petitioner’s own declaration from January 2026.
The record is thus quite muddled. But Petitioner
provides satisfactory explanations that sufficiently rebut
the Government’s position.
As to the Nigerian Consulate report, the Government
asserts that Petitioner departed from the United States on
March 15, 2006, based on a “database check that indicates
the Nigerian Consulate reported the departure.” Id at ¶22.
Petitioner responds that the Government’s database
entry indicating that his departure from the United States
was on March 15, 2006, is incorrect, with such date instead
reflecting his appearance at the US Consulate in Nigeria.
Dkt 10 at 7. He declares in his sworn statement:
Upon arriving in Nigeria, I was subjected
to serious threats and harassment by
religious extremists. As a result, I was
unable to safely present myself to the US
Consulate General in Lagos, Nigeria until
March 2006.
Dkt 13-1 at 3 (declaration of Petitioner).
In accord, the report of the US consular officer reflects
that Petitioner “was seen by Consular Officer, Lagos,
Nigeria on” March 15, 2006. Dkt 10-1 at 21. And as noted
above, that report also records Petitioner’s unlawful
presence in the United States as running from December
1999 to September 2005. Ibid.
As to the declaration, the Government references a
declaration by Petitioner submitted in his immigration
proceedings, dated January 12, 2026. Dkt 12-2 at 36–45. It
states in relevant part:
After entry into the United States, I
returned to my home country in March of
2006 because I was granted voluntary
departure after an immigration hearing in
May 2005 and that was when I could raise
Case 4:26-cv-02426 Document 20 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

7
funds for a flight and settle my affairs here
in the United States before departing.
Id at 36.
Such account contradicts the May 20, 2026, declaration
by Petitioner asserting that he departed in September
2005. See Dkt 13-1 at 3. But he explains in the latter that
he was mistaken in the earlier declaration:
When I was being processed in December
2025, I was in a state of confusion which is
why I mixed up the dates when asked by
my lawyer and the deportation officer,
March 2006 date was the date my
appearance at the US Consulate—not the
date of physical departure from the United
States. I spent 7 months in Nigeria while
facing serious persecution which I believed
will cost me my life.
Ibid.
The declarations are certainly in tension. But it must
be kept in mind that the disputed facts occurred over
twenty years ago. In such light, and even with credibility
at issue, Petitioner’s prior statement doesn’t outweigh the
clear documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner
regarding the timing of his departure.
Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the
evidence that he departed the United States by September
13, 2005. This means that Petitioner wasn’t previously
subject to a final removal order. As such, he cannot be
detained pursuant to reinstatement of removal order under
§1231(a)(5).
4. Conclusion
The motion by the Government for summary judgment
is DENIED. Dkt 8.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus by Petitioner
Chidi Amadi is GRANTED. Dkt 1.
Case 4:26-cv-02426 Document 20 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

8
The Government is ORDERED to release Petitioner
Chidi Amadi from custody within twenty-four hours of this
Order.
The Government is also ORDERED when doing so to
(i) notify Petitioner’s counsel by email no less than two
hours before release of the exact location and time of
Petitioner’s release, (ii) release Petitioner under conditions
no more restrictive than those in place prior to the
detention at issue in this case, and (iii) return all personal
property that was confiscated from Petitioner upon
detention.
The Government is further ORDERED to file an advisory
as to the current status of Petitioner by July 13, 2026.
For the avoidance of doubt, this decision means only
that Petitioner’s present detention may not continue
pursuant to 8 USC §1231(a)(5). No opinion is expressed as
to whether Petitioner may be detained at a later time or on
another basis.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on July 9, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02426 Document 20 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 8