Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Kanwarpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States in February 2018 and was released on bond. An immigration judge ordered his removal to India in August 2021; his appeal remains pending before the Board of Immigration Review. In January 2025, Singh pleaded nolo contendere to assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1). ICE took him into custody on September 14, 2025. Singh filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in March 2026, raising five claims: unlawful detention without statutory authority, prolonged detention without a hearing, unlawful detention because removal is not reasonably foreseeable, arbitrary re-detention, and warrantless entry into his home. The district judge denied the petition as to the statutory authority and arbitrary re-detention claims, finding Singh subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), and referred the remaining claims to the magistrate judge. Singh moved to supplement the record, arguing his detention had become unreasonably prolonged and that he acted in self-defense. Respondents filed a custody determination indicating continued detention pending final administrative resolution. The reviewed document is the court’s signed ruling, and the procedural posture matters: recommendations remain subject to district-judge review, while an order granting the petition has immediate operative effect according to its terms.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the petition in part and denying it in part. The court finds Singh's detention is authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) because his nolo contendere plea to assault with a deadly weapon constitutes an admission of a crime involving moral turpitude, even though the conviction was later expunged. The court declines to dismiss the prolonged detention claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, distinguishing challenges to the applicability of § 1226(c) (which require a Joseph hearing) from as-applied due process challenges to the length of detention (which immigration courts have not shown willingness to evaluate). Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court finds that Singh's approximately 13 months of mandatory detention without a bond hearing violates due process. The first Mathews factor (private interest) favors neither party given Singh's prior years at liberty and his role in prolonging removal proceedings. The second factor (risk of erroneous deprivation) favors Singh because he has received no bond hearing to assess current dangerousness or flight risk. The third factor (government interest) favors Singh because a bond hearing would not undermine the government's interests but would provide a forum to substantiate them. The court recommends Respondents provide a bond hearing within 14 days where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Singh is a flight risk or danger to the community, per Singh v. Holder. The court denies Singh's Zadvydas-based claim (removal not reasonably foreseeable) because he is not subject to a final removal order under § 1231. The court also denies the Fourth Amendment warrantless entry claim because Singh alleges no regulatory violation or egregious constitutional violation, identifies no seized evidence, and proposes no remedy tied to the alleged violation. The ruling is confined to the claims and record before the court. It does not decide issues the court expressly left open, and it should not be read as granting relief broader than the numbered disposition.
Key Takeaways
- An expunged nolo contendere plea to a crime involving moral turpitude still triggers mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).
- As-applied due process challenges to prolonged mandatory detention under § 1226(c) do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies where immigration courts have not shown willingness to evaluate such claims.
- Approximately 13 months of mandatory detention without a bond hearing violates due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, even where the detainee contributed to delays in removal proceedings.
- At a bond hearing for a § 1226(c) detainee, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or danger to the community.
- A Fourth Amendment warrantless entry claim in the immigration context fails where the petitioner alleges no regulatory violation, no egregious constitutional violation, identifies no seized evidence, and seeks no exclusionary remedy.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to the growing body of district court rulings in the Ninth Circuit holding that prolonged mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without an individualized bond hearing violates due process, despite the Ninth Circuit not having definitively resolved the circuit split on this issue. The court's application of the Mathews test—particularly its finding that the second and third factors favor the detainee after 13 months without any bond hearing—provides a framework for similar as-applied challenges. The ruling clarifies that exhaustion is not required for as-applied due process challenges to detention length, distinguishing them from challenges to the statutory basis of detention. The decision also reinforces that expunged convictions and nolo contendere pleas still trigger mandatory detention grounds, and that Zadvydas does not apply to pre-final-order detention under § 1226(c). Practitioners should track the precise statutory custody provision, the process already afforded, and whether the ruling is a final order or a magistrate judge’s recommendation. Those details determine both immediate compliance obligations and the next available review step.