Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Oriyomi Sadiq Aloba, a native and citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States on a K-1 visa in 2013 and adjusted to lawful permanent resident status in 2015. In 2019, a federal jury in the Central District of California convicted him of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 16 counts of wire fraud, four counts of unauthorized impairment of a protected computer, and aggravated identity theft, stemming from a phishing scheme that targeted victims’ credentials and credit card information and accessed Los Angeles Superior Court computer systems. He was sentenced to 75 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution. Upon release from the Bureau of Prisons in November 2025, ICE took Aloba into custody pursuant to an arrest warrant. On November 18, 2025, he was issued a Notice to Appear charging removability based on aggravated felony convictions under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), (iii). An immigration judge denied a custody redetermination hearing on December 10, 2025, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal as untimely on March 23, 2026. Aloba filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on April 13, 2026, challenging his detention based on “materially disputed records” and “inconsistencies” and arguing exhaustion should be excused. The district court denied his motion for a temporary restraining order and referred the matter to the magistrate judge for findings and recommendations.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends denial of the habeas petition. The court concludes that Aloba is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B) based on his aggravated felony convictions, including aggravated identity theft (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G)), wire fraud involving loss exceeding $10,000 (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)), and conspiracy to commit wire fraud (8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(U)). Because his removal order is not yet administratively final—his BIA appeal is pending—detention remains governed by § 1226(c), not the post-removal statute § 1231. Any prolonged detention claim fails because Aloba received a custody redetermination hearing approximately one month after detention. The court declines to address exhaustion because the respondent did not raise it, and finds Aloba’s arguments regarding name variations and disputed records do not explain how they render his detention unconstitutional. The petition is recommended for denial and the case for closure.
Key Takeaways
- A lawful permanent resident convicted of aggravated felonies—including aggravated identity theft, wire fraud with >$10,000 loss, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud—is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) during removal proceedings.
- Detention under § 1226(c) continues until a removal order becomes administratively final (affirmed by BIA or appeal deadline expires); a pending BIA appeal means § 1231 post-removal detention does not yet apply.
- A custody redetermination hearing held within one month of ICE detention satisfies due process for prolonged detention claims at the § 1226(c) stage.
- Pro se arguments challenging the accuracy of records or name variations must demonstrate a nexus to the legality of detention; mere allegations of inconsistencies without showing how they affect removability or mandatory detention grounds are insufficient.
- The court may decline to address exhaustion of administrative remedies when the respondent does not raise it as a defense.
Why It Matters
This findings and recommendations order illustrates the application of mandatory detention under § 1226(c) for aggravated felony convictions, clarifying that the statutory framework applies throughout removal proceedings until a final order issues. It reinforces that pro se petitioners’ due process challenges to detention require a concrete showing of how alleged record discrepancies undermine the statutory basis for mandatory detention, not merely that discrepancies exist.
The decision also confirms that a timely custody redetermination hearing defeats a prolonged detention claim at the pre-final-order stage. While not a precedential district court order, the reasoning reflects settled Ninth Circuit and BIA precedent on the interplay between § 1226(c) and § 1231 and the standards for habeas review of immigration detention.