U.S. Court Orders Release of Nigerian Held by ICE After Years on Supervision
- Feb 23
- 2 min read
A federal court in Minnesota has ordered U.S. immigration authorities to release a Nigerian national who was detained earlier this year despite living under supervised status for more than a decade.
The decision was issued by Senior U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard, who ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had no sufficient legal basis to continue holding Michael Opeoluwa Egbele. The court directed the agency to release him immediately and file confirmation of compliance within days.
Mr Egbele entered the United States in 2003 without legal status. His case drew renewed attention after a 2012 arrest related to a drug offence triggered removal proceedings. Although an immigration judge ordered his deportation that same year and denied his asylum request, the removal was never executed.
Instead, he was placed on an order of supervision in late 2012. Under that arrangement, he was required to report regularly to immigration officials, a condition he reportedly met consistently for over ten years without incident.
In January 2026, ICE detained him during one of his routine check-ins. Authorities later claimed that his supervision had been revoked, partly because he failed to obtain travel documents for return to Nigeria as allegedly required under the terms of his release.
Challenging the detention, Mr Egbele argued that he was not properly informed of any revocation and was given no clear explanation for being taken into custody. His legal team also raised concerns after he was transferred between detention facilities in different states without his family being promptly notified of his whereabouts.
In his ruling, Judge Gerrard stated that immigration authorities could not abruptly reverse a long-standing supervision arrangement without demonstrating a breach of its conditions. He concluded that the detention was unlawful and ordered that Mr Egbele be released under the existing terms of his supervision while the government complies with the court’s directive.
Comments