A United States District Court in Minnesota has ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to immediately release a Nigerian immigrant, Michael Opeoluwa Egbele, from deportation detention, ruling that the government acted unlawfully by abruptly revoking his supervised release without due process.
LIB earlier reported that ICE arrested Egbele, who was convicted of ‘fraud and impersonating ’
In a judgement delivered on February 18, 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard granted Mr Egbele’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed the government to free him no later than February 20.
“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1) is granted,” the court ruled.
The judge further ordered: “The government shall, if necessary, immediately return the petitioner to the District of Minnesota.
When the petitioner is in Minnesota, the government shall immediately release the petitioner from custody subject to and in accordance with the conditions in his preexisting Order of Supervision, and shall return any personal property seized from the petitioner when detained.”
The court added: “No later than February 20, 2026, the government shall file a status report certifying compliance with this Order.”
According to the court document titled Memorandum and Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case number 0:26-CV-1439, Mr Egbele, “a native of Nigeria, entered the United States unlawfully in 2003.”
In 2012, he was arrested and charged with a controlled substances offence. Removal proceedings were initiated, and he applied for asylum and withholding of removal.
The court noted that although he had been charged, “there’s no evidence in the record indicating he ever was” convicted of the offence.
An immigration judge denied his asylum claim and ordered him removed in July 2012.
However, the removal order was never enforced.
“But he wasn’t removed, for reasons not entirely clear from the record,” Judge Gerrard observed.
Instead, Mr Egbele was released in December 2012 “on an order of supervision,” an arrangement the government did not dispute.
The court document stated: “He has remained in compliance with the terms of that order.”
For over a decade, Mr Egbele complied with the conditions of his supervised release, attending regular check-ins with immigration authorities.
However, in January 2026, he was detained during a routine check-in.
The petition filed before the court stated that he was “not notified of any purported revocation of his [order of supervision] or of an interview” and that authorities “did not provide any explanation for the purported revocation of [his order of supervision].”
The government claimed his supervision was revoked partly due to “failure to obtain or attempt to obtain a travel document to Nigeria, as required,” and argued that he would be afforded an interview.
But the judge pointedly noted that the government’s response “doesn’t say he was given such a notice before being arrested.”
Following his detention, Mr Egbele was briefly allowed to call his wife, a U.S. citizen, informing her that he was being transferred out of Minnesota.
For days, his family and legal counsel could not determine his location.
At the time the petition was filed on February 14, 2026, “the Ice Online Detainee Locator System produced no matching records and the petitioner’s location was unknown to his family and counsel,” the document stated.
The government later indicated he had been moved to the Torrance County Detention Center in Estancia, New Mexico.
The administration of President Donald Trump argued that the Minnesota court lacked jurisdiction because Mr Egbele was being held in New Mexico.
The judge dismissed that argument, citing what he described as jurisdictional manipulation.
“This case illustrates precisely the sort of shell game that Justice Kennedy’s concurrence cautioned against,” Judge Gerrard wrote.
He found that the “unknown custodian exception applies,” noting that Mr Egbele’s location was unknown at the time the petition was filed and that the government failed to provide evidence supporting its venue claims.
On the merits, the government argued that Mr Egbele’s detention was lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 because he was subject to a final removal order.
But the judge rejected that reasoning.
“His order of removal was final in 2012, and he wasn’t removed,” the court stated.
The judge held that his release on supervision conferred due process rights embedded in regulatory procedures the government failed to follow.
“The government’s brief doesn’t contradict the petitioner’s allegations that he was detained without a prior notice of revocation,” the court found.
In a scathing assessment, Judge Gerrard wrote: “Nothing in the brief even attempts to identify any change in circumstances that would warrant detention, and the only evidence submitted is from 2012.”
He added: “The only conclusion to be drawn from the record is that the government has presented a post hoc justification for an indiscriminate detention—and even that post hoc justification falls short of the mark.”
“For the reasons explained by the Court… the Court finds that the petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful.”
With that finding, the court ordered his immediate release and compliance reporting within 48 hours.
Leave a Reply