Reported / Citable
Background
Chidi Amadi, a Nigerian national, entered the United States without inspection in 1999. After marrying in 2001, he applied for adjustment of status through his wife’s I-130 petition and obtained work authorization. In May 2004, USCIS denied the I-130 and initiated removal proceedings against him.
An immigration judge granted Amadi voluntary departure in May 2005 with a departure deadline of September 13, 2005. The order provided that if he failed to depart timely, the voluntary departure would automatically become a removal order. In December 2025, ICE detained Amadi and issued a notice of intent to reinstate the prior removal order under 8 USC §1231(a)(5). The critical legal dispute concerned a single factual question: did Amadi timely depart by the September 2005 deadline, or did he depart in March 2006 as the Government claimed?
Amadi filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the lawfulness of his detention. He submitted an airline itinerary showing a September 13–14, 2005 flight from Houston to Lagos through Paris, a Nigerian passport bearing an admission stamp dated September 14, 2005, and a U.S. consular report documenting his unlawful presence as ending in September 2005. The Government argued he departed March 15, 2006, based on a database entry and Amadi’s own earlier declaration stating he returned in March 2006.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Charles Eskridge held that Amadi established by a preponderance of evidence that he departed the United States by September 13, 2005, satisfying his burden as the habeas petitioner. The court found Amadi’s documentary evidence—the airline itinerary, passport stamp, and consular report—constituted clear proof of timely departure. The court credited Amadi’s explanation that his earlier declaration conflating the March 2006 date reflected confusion about whether that date referred to his consular appearance in Nigeria rather than his actual departure from the United States.
The Government’s database entry indicating a March 2006 departure was based on a report from the Nigerian Consulate, which the court found Amadi reasonably explained as documenting his later consular interview, not his entry into Nigeria. The court noted that despite the Government’s investigation into various databases, it could not locate any travel records corroborating a March 2006 departure. Given that the events occurred over twenty years prior, the court found Amadi’s documentary evidence outweighed the Government’s conflicting position.
Critically, because Amadi timely departed, his voluntary departure grant never ripened into a removal order. Without a valid prior removal order, the Government cannot detain him under §1231(a)(5), which provides detention authority only for reinstatement of prior removal orders. The court ordered Amadi’s immediate release and directed the Government to notify his counsel before release and return all confiscated property.
Key Takeaways
- Habeas petitioners challenging immigration detention bear the burden of proving unlawful detention by a preponderance of evidence; clear documentary evidence of departure prevails over conflicting database records.
- Voluntary departure orders do not become removal orders if the alien complies with the departure deadline; therefore, timely compliance eliminates any reinstatement authority under §1231(a)(5).
- Documentary evidence such as airline itineraries, passport stamps, and consular reports can establish compliance with immigration deadlines even when government records conflict.
- Courts will credit reasonable explanations for apparent discrepancies in declarations, particularly when documentary evidence supports the petitioner’s account and events occurred decades prior.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that §1231(a)(5) detention authority depends on the existence of a valid prior removal order. Importantly, timely compliance with voluntary departure eliminates any such order, a principle that protects those who follow immigration deadlines. The ruling clarifies that courts will carefully scrutinize government database evidence against documentary proof of departure dates, particularly when discrepancies admit reasonable explanation. For immigration practitioners, the decision underscores the critical importance of maintaining clear records—airline tickets, passport stamps, and consular documentation—to evidence compliance with voluntary departure deadlines, especially given potential memory lapses and confusion over extended periods.
The opinion also reflects judicial recognition that immigration proceedings spanning decades can involve genuine difficulty in establishing precise timelines. By favoring Amadi’s contemporaneous documentary evidence over later database entries and his own conflicting declaration, the court applied a practical approach to fact-finding in removal cases, signaling that clear contemporaneous documentation carries substantial weight in determining compliance with immigration obligations.