Opinion

Mensah

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Filed
Apr 15, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 40.4%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

KELVIN O. MENSAH, )

Petitioner, )

) Civil No. 26-32

v. )

)

LEONARD ODDO, et. al., )

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending now before the court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1)

filed bo Kelvin O. Mensah (“Mensah”). Leonard Oddo, et.al. (collectively, “Respondents”) filed

a status report (ECF No. 13); and a response in opposition (ECF No. 14). The petition is ripe for

decision.

Mensah, a citizen of Ghana, asserts three grounds for relief: (1) he is subject to

discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and not mandatory detention under §

1226(c) and, therefore, he is entitled to immediate release or an individualized bond hearing; (2)

he qualifies for relief under Immigration and Naturalization Act § 240A(b) because he was

physically present in the United States for not less than 10 years; and (3) he qualifies for

cancellation of removal and asylum withholding under the Convention Against Torture (ECF

No. 1 at 6).

The government agrees that Mensah is being held pursuant to discretionary detention

authority under § 1226(a), not mandatory detention (ECF No. 14 at 2-3). The government

reports that Mensah was arrested on February 6, 2025, and charged with Cruelty toward Child, a

felony charge that remains pending (ECF No. 14-2). The government reports that Mensah has

had three bond hearings before an immigration judge. On March 5, 2025, the immigration judge

denied bond because he found Mensah was a “Danger to the community.” (ECF No. 13-1 at 4).

On April 11, 2025, and May 8, 2025, the immigration judge adhered to that determination and

denied Petitioner’s requests for new bond hearings (ECF Nos. 13-2, 13-3). On November 24,

2025, the immigration judge ordered Mensah to be deported to Ghana. The government

maintains that Mensah is not entitled to another bond hearing.

Mensah acknowledges that he filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”), including the issue of his detention under § 1226 (ECF No. 1 at 2, 4-5), and that appeal

remains pending (ECF No. 13-5). Mensah asserts he is not a danger to the community.

In Borbot v. Warden Hudson County Corrections Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 276 (3d Cir.

2018), the court denied a similar request from a petitioner being held in discretionary detention

under § 1226(a). The immigration judge denied Borbot’s initial request for bond, finding that he

posed a risk of danger based on criminal charges filed in Russia, and denied reconsideration. Id.

at 276. The court of appeals upheld the district court’s denial of Borbot’s petition without a

hearing and cited 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), which provides in relevant part: “[t]he Attorney General's

discretionary judgment regarding [bond hearings for aliens in removal proceedings] shall not be

subject to review” and “[n]o court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General

under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or

denial of bond or parole.” Id. at 279. The court explained: “Borbot's habeas petition seeks to

compel a second bond hearing despite alleging no constitutional defect in the one he received.

This comes close to asking this Court to directly review the IJ's bond decision, a task Congress

has expressly forbidden us from undertaking.” Id. The same result is appropriate here. The

request by Mensah for another bond hearing will be denied.1

An appropriate Order will be entered.

Dated: April 15, 2026 BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joy Flowers Conti

Joy Flowers Conti

Senior United States District Court Judge

cc: Kelvin O. Mensah

A077 635 425

FCI Lewisburg

2400 Robert F. Miller Drive

Lewisburg, PA 17837

(via first-class mail)

1 The other grounds for relief requested in Mensah’s petition are premature, given the pendency of his appeal to

the Board of Immigration Appeals and this court would likely lack jurisdiction to review that decision. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5) (sole and exclusive means for judicial review is generally the appropriate court of appeals).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.