Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Harpal Singh, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 5, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Singh entered the United States on or about December 21, 2021, was detained, and subsequently paroled into the country under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 as an Alternative to Detention (ATD), enrolled in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program with a GPS ankle bracelet. On April 19, 2022, he was served a notice to appear and released on an order of recognizance.
He filed an asylum application on May 10, 2022. On August 1, 2026, Singh was arrested by local law enforcement and booked into Fresno County Jail. On September 8, 2026, he entered a no contest plea to a misdemeanor false imprisonment charge, was sentenced to time served with three years' probation, and upon release was immediately transferred into ICE custody, where he remained at the time of filing. Respondent opposed the petition, asserting Singh was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), but did not oppose the court ruling on the merits based on the existing briefing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, incorporating and adopting the reasoning in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025).
The court held that Singh's prior release by immigration authorities on an order of recognizance created a liberty interest in his continued release, and his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. The court ordered respondent to immediately release Singh on the same conditions he was subject to prior to his re-detention on or about September 8, 2026. Respondent is enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Singh absent exigent circumstances without providing notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before an immigration judge at which the government bears the burden of justifying detention by clear and convincing evidence. The motion for temporary restraining order was denied as moot. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Prior release from immigration detention on an order of recognizance creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest in continued release.
- Re-detention of a noncitizen previously released on recognizance requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before an immigration judge to satisfy due process.
- At such a hearing, the government bears the burden of justifying detention by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court applied its prior precedent in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford and noted alternative support from Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut regarding parole release and re-detention.
- Habeas relief under § 2241 is available to challenge prolonged or renewed immigration detention without procedural safeguards.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces due process protections for noncitizens who have been released from immigration custody on recognizance or parole. By requiring a pre-deprivation bond hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence before re-detention, the court limits ICE's authority to summarily re-arrest individuals who have established a liberty interest through prior release.
The decision aligns with a growing line of cases in the Eastern District of California recognizing that immigration authorities cannot circumvent procedural due process by re-detaining individuals without a hearing, even where statutory detention authority such as 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) might otherwise apply. The ruling provides immediate release and prospective injunctive protection against future re-detention without due process.