# Salau

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · August 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11428801

## Case

- **Full name:** Bolarinwa Salau v. Angela Hoover
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 27, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11428801

## Opinion text

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.).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11428801. Public record. Not legal advice.