“The Department could have removed Oladokun to Nigeria, but for his misconduct at the airport.”
How later courts described this case
- “The Department could have removed Oladokun to Nigeria, but for his misconduct at the airport.”
- “An order of deportation becomes ‘final’ upon a determination by the BIA or the expiration of the time within which an alien may seek review from the BIA.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 22-CIV-21162-RAR
BASIRU VANDI,
Petitioner,
v.
GARRETT RIPA, ICE MIAMI
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,
Respondent.
______________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1], filed on April 14, 2022. Petitioner, a native-born citizen of
Sierra Leone, argues that he has been in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) for more than six months and that his continued detention is no longer “presumptively
reasonable” pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Pet. at 7. The Court ordered the
Respondent to file a Response to the Petition, see Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 4], and the
Respondent did so on May 18, 2022, Response [ECF No. 5]. The Respondent asserts that the
Petition should be denied “because Petitioner has not established there is no significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Resp. at 1. In fact, Respondent claims that
“[Petitioner’s] removal is tentatively scheduled for [June 2022] barring unforeseen
circumstances.” Id. at 3. Since Petitioner’s removal from the United States appears to be
imminent, the Court agrees with Respondent that the instant Petition should be DENIED.
Petitioner was born in Sierra Leone but was admitted into the United States as a lawful
permanent resident on or about September 28, 2010. See Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien
[ECF No. 5-1] at 2. On November 27, 2019, after Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere,
the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, sentenced Petitioner to a five (5)
year term of probation for “Corruption of Minors,” in violation of Title 18, Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes § 6301. See Court of Common Pleas Judgment [ECF No. 5-2] at 27. On
February 13, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security issued a “Notice to Appear” to
Petitioner, informing him that: (1) he was now removable from the United States pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) since he was “convicted of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of
stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment[,]” and (2) he was required
to appear before an immigration judge. Notice to Appear [ECF No. 5-4] at 1.
On June 15, 2020, an immigration judge ordered that Petitioner should be removed to
Sierra Leone. Order of the Immigration Judge [ECF No. 5-6] at 1–2. Petitioner appealed this
decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but the Board dismissed the appeal on July 22,
2021. See BIA Decision [ECF No. 5-7] at 4. Petitioner’s order of removal became final on that
date. See Del Pilar v. United States Att’y Gen., 326 F.3d 1154, 1156 (11th Cir. 2003) (“An order
of deportation becomes ‘final’ upon a determination by the BIA or the expiration of the time within
which an alien may seek review from the BIA.”).
Petitioner was scheduled for removal from the United States on March 30, 2022. See
Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal [ECF No. 5-9] at 1; Declaration of David Casimiro
(“Casimiro Decl.”) [ECF No. 5-10] at ¶ 5. On that day, Petitioner was in the process of boarding
an ICE charter flight to Sierra Leone when “[he] was removed from the flight due to an accusation
made by the petitioner against an [ICE] officer.” Casimiro Decl. at ¶ 5. An investigation occurred
and Petitioner was again cleared for removal from the United States on May 13, 2022. Id.
According to David J. Casimiro, a Detention and Deportation Officer with ICE, the Government
of Sierra Leone has “issued a travel document for the petitioner,” and Petitioner is currently
scheduled to be placed on a repatriation flight to Sierra Leone “at the end of June 2022.” Id. at ¶
6.
In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court explained that the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary
to bring about the alien’s removal from the United States. It does not permit indefinite detention.”
533 U.S. at 689. The Court held that any detention of six months or less was a “presumptively
reasonable period of detention,” id. at 701, and that “an alien may be held in confinement until it
has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future,” id. Conversely, the Court also held that “[a]fter this 6-month period, once the alien
provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.”
Id.
Although more than six months have passed since Petitioner’s removal became final on
July 22, 2021, the Government has plainly shown that Petitioner’s removal from the United States
is not only “reasonably foreseeable” but a fait accompli. See id. Sierra Leone’s government has
provided travel documents to Petitioner and Petitioner is scheduled to board a flight to Sierra
Leonne that will take place at the end of the month. Casimiro Decl. at ¶ 6; see also Drummond v.
Holder, No. 14-23510-CV, 2015 WL 5092803, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2015) (holding that a
petitioner’s removal was “reasonably foreseeable” since the Jamaican government indicated that
travel documents were “forthcoming”), report and recommendations adopted, 2015 WL 5084138
(S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2015). The instant case is factually similar to Oladokun v. United States
Attorney General, 479 F. App’x 895 (11th Cir. 2012). In Oladokun, the petitioner alleged that his
removal from the United States had far exceeded “the six-month presumptively reasonable
removal period” set out by Zadvydas. Id. at 896. The court affirmed the denial of Oladokun’s
petition, reasoning that the petitioner had prevented his own removal by “becoming combative
when placed on the airplane.” /d. at 897. Here, too, Petitioner’s own actions—accusing an ICE
officer of misconduct while boarding his flight back to Sierra Leone—have caused the delay in his
repatriation; therefore, Petitioner has failed to show that the Government itself is incapable of
effectuating his removal from the United States. See id. (“The Department could have removed
Oladokun to Nigeria, but for his misconduct at the airport.”). Accordingly, since the Petitioner’s
removal is “reasonably foreseeable,” the Petition must be denied.
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED
without prejudice. All pending motions are DENIED as moot and all deadlines are
TERMINATED. The Clerk is instructed to CLOSE the case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 2022.
ont A. RUIZ I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce:
Basiru Vandi
A# 061103975
Krome Service Processing Center
Inmate Mail/Parcels
18201 SW 12th Street
Miami, FL 33194
PRO SE
Kelsi R. Romero
United States Attorney’s Office
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
Kelsi.romero@usdoj.gov
Page 4 of 4