Jeffersonking Nwaneke Anyanwu v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 JEFFERSONKING NWANEKE CASE NO. C25-0995JLR ANYANWU, 11 ORDER Petitioner, 12 v. PAMELA BONDI, et al., Respondents.

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Before the court is the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson’s October 6, 2025, report and recommendation, in which she recommends that the court grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss pro se Petitioner Jeffersonking Nwaneke Anyanwu’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition seeking release from detention, deny Mr. Anyanwu’s petition, and dismiss this action with prejudice. (R&R (Dkt. # 18); Petition (Dkt. # 6); Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt.

22 # 13).) Mr. Anyanwu filed objections on October 23, 2025. (Obj. (Dkt. # 19).)

1 Respondents did not respond to Mr. Anyanwu’s objections. (See generally Dkt.) The court has considered the report and recommendation, Mr. Anyanwu’s objections, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law. Being fully advised, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Peterson’s report and recommendation, GRANTS Respondents’ motion to dismiss, and DISMISSES Mr. Anyanwu’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and this action with prejudice.

7 II. BACKGROUND 8 Mr. Anyanwu is a native and citizen of Nigeria who is currently in the custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, Washington. (See Petition at 1.) Because Mr. Anyanwu does not object to the factual and procedural history set forth in the report and recommendation, the court adopts that portion of the report and recommendation and does not repeat it here. (See R&R at 2-5; see generally Obj.)

14 Mr. Anyanwu asserts that his detention is unlawful because his November 5, 2024 bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) did not comport with the procedural due process requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), because (1) the evidence presented at the bond hearing was insufficient to support the IJ’s conclusion that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) had presented clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger to the community and a flight risk; (2) the IJ failed to apply the correct standard of proof at the hearing; (3) the IJ failed to consider alternatives to detention; and (4) the IJ was not a neutral decision maker. (See R&R at 5-7 (first citing Petition, and then citing MTD Resp. (Dkt. # 16)).) Magistrate Judge Peterson recommends, however, that the court conclude that the bond hearing comported with Singh because (1) the evidence supported the IJ’s and Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) conclusions that Mr. Anyanwu was a danger to the community and a flight risk; (2) the IJ and BIA applied the correct burden of proof; (3) due process did not require the IJ to consider alternatives to detention; and (4) Mr. Anyanwu failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of a neutral decision maker and that there was any actual bias on the part of the IJ. (Id. at 5-15.) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Peterson recommends that the court grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss, deny Mr. Anyanwu’s petition for habeas corpus, and dismiss this action with prejudice. (Id. at 15.)

10 III. ANALYSIS 11 A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis added). Because Mr. Anyanwu is proceeding pro se, the court must interpret his petition and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

20 In his objections, Mr. Anyanwu makes three arguments. First, Mr. Anyanwu argues that the IJ based his conclusion that Mr. Anyanwu was a danger to the community only on Mr. Anyanwu’s past criminal history, and that neither the IJ nor the BIA on appeal addressed evidence that he had no misconduct history during his incarceration and that he was assessed to have a low risk of recidivism. (Obj. at 3.) Second, Mr. Anyanwu argues that the IJ’s decision did not rest on clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Anyanwu was a flight risk, and that not all of the factors in Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N.

5 Dec. 37, 40 (B.I.A. 2006), were included in the IJ’s assessment of flight risk. (Id. at 4.)

6 Lastly, Mr. Anyanwu alleges that there was judicial bias because the IJ co-mingled information from two proceedings and considered information that was not on the record.

8 (Id. at 5.)

9 These arguments, however, are nearly identical to the arguments Mr. Anyanwu made in his petition and response to the motion to dismiss, and Magistrate Judge Peterson clearly addressed each argument in her report and recommendation. (See generally R&R.) Furthermore, the court has carefully reviewed the report and recommendation and, on de novo review, agrees with Magistrate Judge Peterson’s recommendations.

14 Therefore, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Peterson’s report and recommendation in full.

16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, the court OVERRULES Mr. Anyanwu’s objections (Dkt. # 19) and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Peterson’s report and recommendation (Dkt.

19 # 18). Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows: 20 1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 13) is GRANTED; 21 2. Mr. Anyanwu’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 6), and this action, are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 1 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this order to Mr. Anyanwu, to counsel for Respondents, and to the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson.

3 Dated this 14th day of November, 2025.

A JAMES L. ROBART 5 United States District Judge