Former USCIS Official Charged in $960K Citizenship Bribery Scheme
Lukman Owolabi Ganiyu and Adeniyi Akeem Somoye face conspiracy charges, according to federal prosecutors.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 3:47 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 7, 2026, 3:52 a.m. ET
Former USCIS Official and Accomplice Charged in Alleged $960K Bribery Scheme
Lukman Owolabi Ganiyu and Adeniyi Akeem Somoye have been charged with conspiracy to receive illegal gratuities by a public official, according to WFMD.com. The government alleges that the two accepted nearly $960,000 in exchange for manipulating and expediting immigration applications, including citizenship cases, by bypassing standard procedures and altering the USCIS system.
The case is pending in the Northern District of Texas. If convicted, each faces up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000. As this is a charging stage, the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Sep 7, 2026, 3:47 a.m. ETFirst report
Former USCIS Official and Accomplice Charged in Alleged $960K Bribery Scheme
Two men have been charged in the Northern District of Texas with conspiracy to receive illegal gratuities by a public official, according to WFMD.com. The charges stem from an alleged scheme in which Lukman Owolabi Ganiyu and Adeniyi Akeem Somoye accepted nearly $960,000 in exchange for manipulating and expediting immigration applications, including citizenship cases, by bypassing standard procedures and altering the USCIS system.
The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If convicted, they face up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, as reported by WFMD.com.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 07:52current
First published.
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 07:47current
First published.
- Version 17 Sept 2026, 07:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.