In a recent assessment, immigration attorney Angela Moore commented on the case of former Ghanaian Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, highlighting the relationship between U.S. immigration law and international political pressures. Moore, a Ghanaian lawyer with extensive experience in both Ghana and the U.S., stated that judicial processes are governed by legal statutes rather than public protests, emphasizing that “Courts respond to law, not protests.”
Angela Moore is the Founder and Managing Attorney of JJ Moore & Associates, PLLC, a firm with offices in Tennessee and Georgia that specializes exclusively in U.S. immigration law and deportation defense, among other services for immigrants and their families. Her firm’s mission centers on navigating the legal avenues available to non-citizens while ensuring compliance and due process under U.S. immigration statutes.
The case of Ken Ofori-Atta, who served as Ghana’s Finance Minister from 2017 to 2024, has evolved into a tense legal battle spanning continents. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him in early January 2026 after concluding that his stay in the country was not lawful due to the revocation of his U.S. visa in June 2025. U.S. authorities maintain he violated immigration laws when the visa was revoked but he remained in the United States.
Ofori-Atta is currently in ICE custody at the Caroline Detention Facility in Virginia while an immigration court hearingaddresses his status; this case has been adjourned to April 27, 2026 as legal proceedings continue.
Meanwhile, Ghana has formally requested his extradition on the basis of alleged corruption charges stemming from a series of controversial contracts, including the Strategic Mobilisation Limited (SML) procurement deal and the National Cathedral project. Prosecutors in Ghana have lodged 78 counts of corruption and corruption-related offenses against Ofori-Atta and associates.
Angela Moore’s commentary arrives at a time when demonstrations and political debates in Ghana and among diaspora communities, have intensified around the case. However, she underscores that U.S. immigration courts and federal agencies such as ICE and the Department of Justice are bound by the Immigration and Nationality Act and related jurisprudence, which dictate how matters like status adjustments, deportation defense, and removal proceedings are conducted.
Her statement “Courts respond to law, not protests” reflects her view that legal strategies must be anchored in statutory rights, procedural safeguards, and evidentiary standards, rather than public demonstrations or political pressure.
According to Angela Moore’s practice focus, non-citizens like Ofori-Atta have specific avenues available under U.S. immigration law, including adjustment of status, voluntary departure, and legal defense against removal or deportation. She also notes that courts weigh legal merits and compliance with immigration regulations above all else, a position widely held by immigration practitioners.
Angela Moore also touched on the broader topic of deportation versus voluntary departure an area of immigration law highly relevant in Ofori-Atta’s circumstances. Legal experts, reflecting on similar cases, have pointed out that individuals in removal proceedings may sometimes elect for self-deportation (“voluntary departure”), allowing them to leave the United States on their own terms within a set timeframe typically between 30 and 120 days without the formal stigma of removal on their record.
This pathway, while not erasing any underlying immigration violation, can offer practical and strategic advantages depending on the individual’s goals and future prospects. Moore emphasized that every immigration case requires careful analysis of both statutory criteria and practical implications, particularly where complex international factors such as extradition requests intersect with immigration law.
Ofori-Atta’s situation has sparked heated debate across Ghana’s political spectrum. Some civic watchdogs in Accra have staged protests at the U.S. Embassy, highlighting domestic frustration with corruption and accountability. Others argue the case could set precedent for how high-level officials are held to account across borders.
Follow For More News Updates
