How a Kenyan National With a Criminal Record Was Hired at the Minnesota Department of Education With a Six-Figure Salary Before ICE Finally Stepped In
Every so often a story comes along that makes you stop and wonder how the system could possibly let something like this happen. The case of Wilson Tindi in Minnesota is one of those stories. It is not just about one man’s choices but about the larger cracks in government hiring and immigration enforcement that allowed him to remain in positions of responsibility for years before immigration officials finally stepped in and made an arrest.
Back in 2014, Tindi, a Kenyan national living in Minnesota, pleaded guilty to criminal sexual assault. According to court records, the incident took place after he entered a woman’s apartment without permission and assaulted her while she slept. It was a serious crime, the kind that forever changes the life of a victim and should have permanently reshaped the future of the person responsible. For most people, a conviction like that would be a permanent roadblock to government employment or any role involving public trust.
After the conviction, immigration authorities placed him into removal proceedings. By 2016, an immigration court had ordered his deportation, and ICE detained him with the goal of sending him back to Kenya. On paper, that might have seemed like the end of the story. But his lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that his prolonged detention without removal violated constitutional protections. In 2018, a federal judge agreed, ruling that indefinite detention could not continue, and he was released. Although the deportation order was still on the books, the enforcement of it was stalled.
What happened next shocked many Minnesotans. Tindi managed to secure employment inside the state government. By 2025, he was hired by the Minnesota Department of Education as the Director of Internal Audit and Advisory Services. The position came with a salary of about $145,000 per year, funded by taxpayers. Department officials later emphasized that his role did not involve contact with students or schools and that he had no access to student data, but the revelation that someone with his history had been brought into such a role was enough to spark outrage.
The Minnesota Department of Education quietly confirmed that Tindi was no longer employed as of June 27, 2025, after his past was brought to light. His departure, however, did little to calm the concerns of parents, lawmakers, and ordinary citizens who wanted to know how he was hired in the first place. Minnesota’s “Ban the Box” law, designed to prevent discrimination against people with criminal records during the hiring process, may have played a part by limiting when a person’s criminal history can be reviewed. But many felt that public institutions should go beyond the minimum legal requirements, especially for senior roles that require trust and oversight.
The story did not end with his resignation. In the summer of 2025, ICE once again arrested Tindi as part of an operation targeting noncitizens with criminal convictions. Reports confirmed that he was taken into custody, and for many, it was a moment of relief. To them, this was an action that should have happened years earlier. To others, it raised bigger questions about why a man with a deportation order from nearly a decade ago had been able to remain free, secure a government job, and draw a six-figure salary from public funds.
The case of Wilson Tindi has become a symbol of how fragile public trust can be. Parents were left uneasy, taxpayers were frustrated, and lawmakers quickly called for reforms. Some are now pushing for mandatory background checks across all government roles, regardless of whether they involve direct student contact. Others are questioning how immigration enforcement can be improved to prevent similar situations from unfolding in the future.
For Tindi, the next chapter will be decided by the immigration courts and ICE, but for Minnesota the lesson is already clear. Institutions must put the safety and trust of the public at the center of every decision, and when they fail, the consequences are more than bureaucratic—they cut into the very confidence that people place in their government.
