Odiase v. ODDO
3:25-cv-00206
| W.D. Pa. | Jul 31, 2025Background
- Ovbokhan Adun Odiase, a Nigerian citizen, entered the U.S. in 2020 on a B2 visa and overstayed her authorized period.
- Odiase filed for asylum after receiving a Notice to Appear for removal; pending asylum, she received work authorization.
- In February 2024, Odiase was arrested in New Jersey on criminal charges but was immediately detained by ICE upon release.
- In January 2025, an Immigration Judge ordered her removal but granted withholding of removal to Nigeria on humanitarian grounds, making the order final as of January 10, 2025.
- ICE has sought to remove her to other countries; requests to several countries were denied or are pending, but ICE maintains removal is reasonably foreseeable.
- Odiase filed a habeas petition and motion for emergent relief, arguing her continued detention was unconstitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis and that ICE had not properly reviewed her custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality and lawfulness of prolonged ICE detention | Detention violates due process and is unlawful per Zadvydas after >6 months | Detention is lawful; significant likelihood of removal remains | Detention is lawful; significant removal likelihood exists, so Zadvydas not violated |
| Adequacy of ICE custody reviews | ICE failed to regularly and properly review Odiase's detention status | ICE followed regulatory procedures and conducted regular, documented reviews | ICE's process was adequate under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4; no evidence of due process violation |
| Preliminary injunction standard—likelihood of success | High likelihood of success on merits justifies extraordinary relief | No likelihood of success: removal is foreseeable; process followed | Denied PI Motion for lack of likelihood of success on the merits |
| Entitlement to immediate release | Release required as detention has allegedly become indefinite and unreasonable | Removal is imminent and supported by ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure a country | No entitlement to release; detention remains justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004) (establishes standard for preliminary injunctions as an extraordinary remedy)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (reinforces judicial authority to review habeas corpus petitions for ICE detainees)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (limits post-removal-order detention of aliens to period reasonably necessary for removal)