Salau

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BOLARINWA SALAU, No. 4:26-CV-01133

Petitioner, (Chief Judge Brann)

v.

ANGELA HOOVER,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AUGUST 27, 2026

Petitioner Bolarinwa Salau is an immigration detainee in the custody of the

United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE). He is currently detained at Pike County Correctional Facility

in Lords Valley, Pennsylvania. Salau commenced this action by filing a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, his second such petition in this

Court. He seeks immediate release from detention or a bond hearing. For the

reasons that follow, the Court will deny Salau’s Section 2241 petition.

I. BACKGROUND

Salau is a native and citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States on

August 2, 2017, on an F-1 nonimmigrant student visa.1 On February 8, 2018,

Salau filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal with

the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).2 On June 2,

2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Salau an I-862 Notice

to Appear, which charged him with violating Section 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i), for failing to

attend classes at the university to which he was assigned.3 On December 18, 2023,

an Immigration Judge (IJ) dismissed the case due to prosecutorial discretion.4 On

April 4, 2022, Salau filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and an I-485

Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.5 Salau, however,

had no claim to United States citizenship at that time and there were no known

naturalization or derivation issues, so both applications were denied by USCIS on

April 12, 2024.6

On November 13, 2024, Salau was arrested for Identity Theft, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) and (b)(2)(B).7 Salau pled guilty, and on September 8,

2025, was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

West Virginia to 24 months’ incarceration in the custody of the Federal Bureau of

Prisons (BOP).8 He appealed that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals

2 Doc. 9-2 at 4.

3 Id.

4 Id. at 5.

5 Id. at 4.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 See id.; United States v. Salau, No. 5:24-CR-00046-1, Docs. 63, 69 (W.D. Va.).

for the Fourth Circuit, which denied his appeal on May 27, 2026, and issued its

mandate on July 15, 2026.9

On October 29, 2025, ICE encountered Salau, pursuant to the Criminal

Alien Program, while he was incarcerated at a federal correctional facility in White

Deer, Pennsylvania, and determined that Salau was an alien removable from the

United States.10 On November 7, 2025, DHS issued a Detainer (I-247A), and

Warrant of Arrest (I-200), charging Salau as removable pursuant to Section

237(a)(1)(C)(i) and Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the INA for failing to comply with the

conditions of his admission and for remaining in the United States for a time

longer than permitted, respectively.11 Salau was ordered detained by DHS on

November 7, 2025.12

On November 18, 2025, in a custody redetermination proceeding pursuant to

8 C.F.R. § 1236, an IJ found that Salau was a flight risk and that relief from

removal was not apparent or documented and denied bond.13 Salau lodged his first

habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court on December 1, 2025,

challenging his immigration detention.14 Following expedited briefing, the

Honorable Karoline Mehalchik found that Salau’s detention under 8 U.S.C. §

9 See Salau, No. 5:24-CR-00046-1, Docs. 91, 94 (W.D. Va.).

10 Doc. 9-2 at 4.

11 Doc. 9-3 at 6-7.

12 Doc. 9-4 at 2.

13 Doc. 9-5 at 2-3.

14 See Salau v. Hoover, No. 3:25-CV-02295, Doc. 1 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2025) (Mehalchick, J.).

1226(c)15 was not unconstitutionally prolonged and denied his petition.16 Salau

appealed that decision,17 which appeal was summarily dismissed by the United

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 15, 2026, due to Salau’s

failure to file a brief and appendix as directed.18

While that appeal was pending, on March 13, 2026, an IJ ordered Salau

removed to Nigeria based on Section 237(a)(1)(C)(i) and Section 237(a)(1)(B) and

denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture (CAT).19 Salau appealed that decision to the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),20 which appeal remains pending. Four days

later, on March 17, 2026, a different IJ denied Salau’s written request for custody

15 It does not appear that Salau was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) at the time he filed,

and Judge Mehalchick adjudicated, his first Section 2241 petition. That is because Salau’s

federal criminal conviction for identity theft was still pending on appeal at that time. See Orabi

v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 738 F.3d 535, 543 (3d Cir. 2014) (“We are therefore convinced that . . .

a conviction does not attain a sufficient degree of finality for immigration purposes until direct

appellate review of the conviction has been exhausted or waived[.]” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, Salau’s deportation documents and order of removal

mention only failure to comply with conditions of admission (§ 237(a)(1)(C)(i)) and remaining

longer than permitted without authorization (§ 237(a)(1)(B)). These bases for removal are not

criminal convictions that qualify for mandatory pre-removal detention under Section 1226(c).

See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1). Thus, at the time of filing and adjudication of his first habeas

petition, it appears that Salau was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than Section

1226(c).

16 See id., Docs. 14, 15 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2026).

17 See id., Doc. 18 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2026).

18 See Salay v. Warden Clinton Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 26-1105, Doc. 11 (3d Cir. May 15,

2026). It appears that the Third Circuit inadvertently misspelled Salau’s last name as “Salay.”

19 See Docs. 9-6, 9-7.

20 See Doc. 9-9 at 3-4.

redetermination, finding that Salau had not established materially changed

circumstances since his prior bond redetermination denial.21

Salau lodged the instant habeas petition in this Court on April 29, 2026, his

second such petition.22 The Court again ordered expedited briefing.23 Respondent

timely responded to the petition on June 8, 2026.24 Salau filed a traverse on June

23, 2026.25 His Section 2241 petition is therefore ripe for disposition.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a prisoner or detainee may receive habeas relief

only if he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.”26 Because Salau filed the instant petition while he was detained

within the jurisdiction of this Court, is still currently detained by ICE, and asserts

that his continued detention violates due process, this Court has jurisdiction over

his Section 2241 petition.27

21 See Doc. 9-8 at 3-4 (citing, inter alia, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e) (“After an initial bond

redetermination, an alien’s request for a subsequent bond redetermination shall be made in

writing and shall be considered only upon a showing that the alien’s circumstances have

changed materially since the prior bond redetermination.”)).

22 Doc. 1.

23 Doc. 6.

24 See generally Doc. 9.

25 Doc. 10. During the pendency of this case, Salau also filed a motion for a temporary restraining

order (Doc. 5), a motion for “an expedited summary judgment order,” (Doc. 12), and a motion

for status conference or ruling, (Doc. 13).

26 See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989).

27 See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998);

Khalil v. President, United States, 164 F.4th 259, 277-79 (3d Cir. 2026) (holding that detention

specific claims, like length and conditions of confinement, do not “arise from” removal

proceedings and can be addressed by district courts).

III. DISCUSSION

Salau has been ordered removed to Nigeria. He has appealed that decision

to the BIA and his appeal remains pending, so his order of removal is not final. In

his Section 2241 petition, he argues that his detention has become unreasonably

prolonged and violative of due process.28 He requests “immediate release” or “a

constitutionally sufficient bond hearing.”29

Notably, Salau argues that he is not subject to mandatory detention under 8

U.S.C. § 1226(c) because he is appealing his federal identity theft conviction.30

Whatever force that argument may have had when he filed the instant petition, it

evaporated when the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and

issued its mandate.31 It is now indisputable that Salau is being detained pursuant to

Section 1226(c).32 Accordingly, the Court must determine whether Salau’s

mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) has become unreasonable.

In Jennings v. Rodriguez,33 the Supreme Court of the United States rejected

the premise that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) contains an implicit time limit for pre-removal

28 Doc. 1 at 1.

29 Id.

30 See id. at 1, 2, 3; Doc. 10 at 4.

31 See note 15, supra; Orabi, 738 F.3d at 543.

32 See Salau v. Hoover, No. 3:25-CV-02295, Doc. 14 at 7 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2026) (citing 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(2)(i)(I); Sasay v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 13 F.4th 291, 298 (3d Cir. 2021) (finding that

noncitizen’s prior conviction for aggravated identity theft qualified as a crime involving moral

turpitude, which rendered him removable under the INA); Chiao Fang Ku v. Att’y Gen. U.S.,

912 F.3d 133, 143 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223, 232 (1951))

(“Courts have long treated fraud crimes as ‘involving moral turpitude’”)).

33 583 U.S. 281 (2018).

detention.34 The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, however,

has explained that Jennings “did not call into question [the] constitutional holding

in Diop [v. ICE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011)] that detention

under § 1226(c) may violate due process if unreasonably long.”35 Thus, “even

after Jennings, an alien lawfully present but detained under § 1226(c) can still

challenge his detention under the Due Process Clause” by seeking an

individualized bond hearing.36 In such as-applied challenges, “when detention

becomes unreasonable, the Due Process Clause demands a hearing.”37

When reviewing as-applied challenges to the constitutionality of continued

mandatory detention under Section 1226(c), “[t]he most important factor is the

duration of detention.”38 Additionally, the Court must consider the other

circumstances of detention, including: (1) “whether the detention is likely to

continue”; (2) “the reasons for the delay, such as a detainee’s request for

continuances”; and (3) “whether the alien’s conditions of confinement are

‘meaningfully different’ from criminal punishment.”39 There is no “bright-line”

34 Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303-06.

35 Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 2018).

36 German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2020).

37 Id. (quoting Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011), abrogated in part

on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018)).

38 See id. at 211.

39 Id. (quoting Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 478 (3d Cir. 2015)).

threshold for reasonableness; rather, whether continued detention is reasonable is a

“highly fact-specific” inquiry.40

At the outset, the Court observes that—at least under the facts of this case—

it cannot grant Salau’s requested relief of immediate release from custody.41

Rather, the Court is limited to resolving whether, under the German Santos factors,

Salau is entitled to an individualized bond hearing to determine if “detention is still

necessary to fulfill [Section 1226(c)]’s purposes of ensuring that an alien attends

removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger to the

community.”42 The Court will take each factor in turn.

The first and most important factor is the duration of detention. Salau

argues in his traverse that his detention has lasted “seven months” and violates his

due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.43 Salau, however, was being

detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) from the time he was taken into ICE

custody in November 2025 until his criminal conviction became final on July 15,

2026, when the Fourth Circuit issued its mandate. Importantly, Salau was

provided with procedural protections during his Section 1226(a) detention. Those

protections included a bond redetermination hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1236

40 Id. at 210 (quoting Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 474).

41 See id. (“[W]hen detention becomes unreasonable, the Due Process Clause demands a

hearing.” (emphasis added) (quoting Diop, 656 F.3d at 233)).

42 Diop, 656 F.3d at 231.

43 Doc. 10 at 4-5.

on November 18, 2025, as well as consideration by an IJ of a written request for

bond redetermination on March 17, 2026, albeit without a hearing. Thus, during

his Section 1226(a) detention from November 2025 to July 2026, Salau “was

granted meaningful process prior to filing his habeas petition” as required by

Section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations.44

Salau has been held in mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) for a little

more than a month. Yet district courts in this circuit have frequently found that

detention under Section 1226(c) for less than, or slightly more than, a year does

not amount to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty or weigh in favor of habeas

relief.45 The decisions cited in Gabriel v. Barr stand in contrast to cases where

detention was approaching, or exceeded, two years in length before receiving an

initial bond hearing.46 Consequently, Salau’s short duration of detention under

Section 1226(c)—a little more than a month—without additional due process

protections weighs heavily against relief.

The next factor that must be considered is whether detention is likely to

continue. In this case, detention is likely to continue for a substantial amount of

44 Borbot, 906 F.3d at 278-79.

45 See Gabriel v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-1054, 2021 WL 268996, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2021)

(collecting cases).

46 See, e.g., German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212 (two-and-a-half years’ detention); Clarke v. Doll,

No. 3:20-cv-31, 2020 WL 4933696, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2020) (20 months); Chikerema

v. Lowe, No. 1:18-cv-1031, 2019 WL 3891086, (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2019) (over 20 months):

Vega v. Doll, No. 3:17-cv-1440, 2018 WL 3756755, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2018) (Mannion,

J.) (21 months).

time, as Salau just recently appealed his order of removal to the BIA. It is well

understood that the BIA is understaffed and appeal processing times can be

lengthy.47 Additionally, should Salau be unsuccessful on appeal to the BIA, he

may challenge the BIA’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit,48 which could take many additional months. This factor thus

supports a finding of unreasonableness.49

The reasons for delay provide no support for Salau’s petition. There is no

evidence that the government has unreasonably delayed the immigration

proceedings, nor that Salau is operating in anything other than good faith in his

pursuit of relief from removal. Consequently, this factor does not weigh in favor

of either party and thus does not advance Salau’s as-applied due process challenge.

The final factor is whether the petitioner’s conditions of confinement are

“‘meaningfully different’ from criminal punishment.”50 Salau is currently detained

at Pike County Correctional Facility. His detention appears to be no different than

criminal incarceration. As another court in this district has aptly put it: “The Pike

47 See, e.g., Ologbenla v. Lowe, No. 3:25-cv-1351, 2025 WL 2375272, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 14,

2025) (noting that “recently 13 members of the BIA were terminated, a substantial downsizing

‘at a time when the BIA faced a backlog of 112,952 cases at the end of FY 2024’”).

48 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).

49 See German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211 (“When the alien’s removal proceedings are unlikely to

end soon, this suggests that continued detention without a bond hearing is unreasonable.”

(citation omitted)).

50 German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211 (quoting Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478).

County Correctional Facility is a county jail. A jail is a jail.”51 Accordingly, this

final factor cuts in Salau’s favor.

When reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that

habeas relief is not warranted. The German Santos factors, on whole, do not

militate in favor of finding that Salau’s continued mandatory detention under

Section 1226(c) is unreasonable and thus unconstitutional. That conclusion is

primarily driven by the first and most important factor—the length of his detention.

Nonetheless, should Salau’s Section 1226(c) detention without a bond

hearing become prolonged to the point where it does become unreasonable, he may

file a new Section 2241 petition in the appropriate court.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Salau’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice. An appropriate

Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

Chief United States District Judge

51 Tchouala v. Lowe, No. 3:26-cv-887, 2026 WL 1401765, at *5 (M.D. Pa. May 19, 2026)

(Munley, J.).