- Federal authorities arrested former USCIS Officer Lukman Owolabi Ganiyu and Adeniyi Akeem Somoye over alleged immigration bribery.
- Prosecutors say Ganiyu used his role from December twenty nineteen through March twenty twenty-six to expedite or alter cases.
- The arrests do not cancel approvals automatically, but they could trigger reviews of green cards, citizenship, and family petitions.
Federal authorities arrested former USCIS Officer Lukman Owolabi Ganiyu and Adeniyi Akeem Somoye on September 4, 2026, accusing them of taking money to manipulate immigration applications. The alleged conduct reached family petitions, permanent residence, removal of conditions and naturalization.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas said Ganiyu, a former senior immigration services officer, used his position from December 2019 through March 2026 to expedite or alter cases. Prosecutors charged the pair with conspiracy to receive illegal gratuities involving a public official.
Free toolSubstantial Presence Test Calculator
The criminal complaint remains an accusation. Both defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The arrests do not automatically cancel any approved petition, status or certificate. They could, however, prompt individual reviews of files handled by Ganiyu and cases linked to the alleged intermediary.
The investigation could reach approved cases, but an arrest changes none of them automatically
The allegations cover Form I-130, Form I-485, Form I-751 and Form N-400. Prosecutors say required interviews, supervisory checks, jurisdictional limits and background procedures were bypassed in some cases.
Investigators identified thousands of WhatsApp messages and hundreds of calls involving Ganiyu, Somoye and applicants. The complaint also alleges that payments corresponded with approvals in several cases. That evidence could help authorities identify files for closer examination.
Potential review targets include cases approved by Ganiyu, applications connected to Somoye, payments made in suspicious circumstances and approvals outside the officer’s usual jurisdiction. Files missing supervisory review or background checks could also draw scrutiny.
Being included in that review would not prove that an applicant committed fraud. The government would still need to examine the person’s eligibility, statements, evidence and knowledge of the alleged scheme.
Permanent residence can be challenged when the recipient was never legally eligible
A person’s lack of knowledge about official misconduct does not answer every immigration question. Someone may not have bribed an officer and still may not have met the legal requirements for adjustment of status.
Under 8 U.S.C. §1256, the government may rescind an adjustment within five years if it determines that the recipient was not actually eligible. The person can then return to the position held before adjustment and may face removal proceedings.
The statute also permits the government to pursue removal without first completing formal rescission. The applicable route can depend on how permanent residence was obtained, how much time has passed and which grounds authorities allege.
The two issues should be kept separate: “I did not bribe the officer” is not identical to “I was legally entitled to the green card.”
A procedural failure also does not automatically erase an otherwise valid approval. A genuine qualifying relationship, truthful disclosures, no disqualifying history, satisfaction of substantive requirements and no prohibited payment could produce a different analysis from a case in which bypassed safeguards concealed ineligibility.
A family petition or conditional residence approval can affect later benefits
An approved Form I-130 confirms a qualifying family relationship. It does not itself grant permanent residence.
If officials approved a petition despite a sham marriage or nonexistent relationship, later benefits built on that petition could come under review. The possible sequence is straightforward: an improper family petition, followed by improper adjustment, followed by vulnerable permanent residence.
The complaint also names Form I-751, which conditional residents generally use to remove conditions on residence. Authorities could revisit the underlying history if conditions were removed despite failure to satisfy the legal requirements.
Family cases can extend beyond the principal applicant. A spouse or child with derivative status may face consequences if the principal’s status proves invalid, but officials would still need to assess each person’s legal basis, knowledge, age, independent eligibility and later immigration history.
The alleged scheme began in December 2019, while the adjustment rescission rule refers to a five-year period. Passage of five years does not automatically make an older case safe, and authorities cannot treat every older approval as subject to the same remedy.
Naturalized citizens face a separate federal court process
Federal law provides a distinct path for challenging naturalization. Under 8 U.S.C. §1451(a), the government may seek revocation when naturalization was illegally procured or obtained through concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation.
Those civil denaturalization cases proceed in federal court. An officer’s approval of Form N-400 alone would not resolve the question. Authorities would examine whether the person met the statutory requirements and whether a ground for revocation exists.
A later certificate does not necessarily end scrutiny of the underlying immigration record. Naturalization generally requires lawful admission as a permanent resident. If that status rested on an unlawful adjustment, the government may examine the earlier approval as part of the citizenship case.
Section 1256 connects an invalid adjustment followed by naturalization to the denaturalization provisions of Section 1451. The Justice Department has also pursued comparable cases involving allegations that people were never lawfully entitled to the permanent-resident status used for naturalization.
The department announced 25 new civil denaturalization complaints in August. On August 3, it said those complaints had been filed since July 20 and described the action as a record enforcement effort involving alleged immigration fraud and other conduct affecting eligibility.
That enforcement activity does not mean every person whose file passed through Ganiyu’s office faces loss of status. It does mean a later naturalization approval may not prevent review of an earlier permanent-residence case.
The same file can produce different legal questions for different applicants
The evidence could place applicants in very different categories:
| Applicant situation | Questions likely to matter |
|---|---|
| An ineligible applicant pays an intermediary $20,000 for an inside approval | Did the person know they were ineligible, know an official would be paid, or submit false evidence? |
| A qualified applicant pays legitimate government and attorney fees | Was the case truthful and did the applicant satisfy the substantive requirements? |
| A client pays a professional service provider without knowing about bribery | What was promised, what did the client believe the payment covered, and was a guaranteed approval offered? |
| A spouse or child receives derivative status | What was the legal basis for the status, and did the family member know about any misconduct? |
Paying an attorney, accredited representative, translator or document preparer does not by itself establish wrongdoing. A payment to an intermediary promising an inside approval presents a different factual question.
Applicants could face separate criminal exposure if investigators find knowing participation in bribery, false statements, fraudulent documents or conspiracy. The current charges against Ganiyu and Somoye do not establish criminal liability for every applicant whose file appears in the investigation.
People connected to the case should preserve records before responding to investigators
Anyone who recognizes Ganiyu’s name, Somoye’s alleged role or circumstances described in the complaint should preserve the full immigration file. Useful records include:
- USCIS notices, applications, petitions, approval notices and green-card records.
- Attorney agreements, invoices and receipts.
- Bank transfers, Zelle or Cash App records.
- Emails, WhatsApp conversations and text messages.
- Interview notices and Requests for Evidence.
- Naturalization documents and other records showing the history of the case.
People should not destroy records, alter documents or coordinate explanations with other participants. Someone contacted by USCIS or federal investigators should consider consulting a qualified U.S. immigration attorney before making substantive statements.
Where investigators might allege bribery or other criminal conduct, counsel experienced in criminal investigations may also be appropriate. The facts could distinguish a deceived client from a knowing participant.
The evidence will determine whether an old approval becomes a new proceeding
The investigation was conducted by the USCIS Office of Investigations, the DHS Office of Inspector General and the FBI Dallas Field Office, according to the Justice Department. Its immediate criminal case involves two defendants, but the immigration consequences could extend to additional files if authorities identify unlawfully granted benefits.
Guaranteed approvals remain a warning sign. A legitimate lawyer, consultant or document preparer can prepare an application and explain legal options, but cannot lawfully purchase an adjudicator’s decision or guarantee approval.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
