Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rajinder Sidhu, who is from India, entered the United States on July 15, 2023, and was encountered by Customs and Border Protection. The Department of Homeland Security charged him as removable, then released him into the country’s interior under an Intensive Supervision Appearance Program as an alternative to detention. He applied for asylum soon after entry; that application and his removal proceedings remained pending. The order also states that he had no criminal history.
On September 19, 2026, Sidhu reported to an ICE enforcement officer in Fresno as part of his ATD reporting requirements. ICE identified four alleged violations: three missed tracker callbacks and one tracker low-battery event, dated in January and June 2026. Officers detained him, and DHS issued a custody determination providing for detention pending a final administrative decision. He was transferred to the Golden State Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, where the order states he remained.
Sidhu filed his § 2241 petition and TRO motion on October 9, arguing that re-detention without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. He disputed the ATD allegations and said he complied with the program and promptly charged a low-battery device. Respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) authorized his detention and that he was entitled only to a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. They did not request a hearing or further briefing, Sidhu filed no reply, and the court decided the petition on the existing record.
The Court’s Holding
The court agreed with the parties that § 1226(a) governed because Sidhu had been encountered upon entry and released into the interior. It held that his re-detention after more than three years of release, without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing, violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court then considered respondents’ separate contention that the alleged ATD violations justified custody. Apart from the I-213, respondents supplied no substantive supporting evidence such as electronic records of failed submissions or a declaration from the assigned deportation officer.
Although the court said it would generally order a bond hearing in cases involving alleged ATD violations, it found respondents’ documentation insufficiently independent and verifiable here. Their allegations did not adequately demonstrate changed circumstances making re-detention justified and not clearly pretextual. The court emphasized that the last alleged violation occurred on June 14, yet ICE did not arrest Sidhu until his September check-in. It also noted his lack of criminal history and the absence of any record indication that he endangered the community. It therefore granted habeas relief rather than merely ordering a bond hearing.
The operative order required Sidhu’s immediate release and denied his counsel and TRO motions as moot. Respondents were enjoined from re-detaining him unless they give at least seven days’ advance notice and hold a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under § 1226(a) and applicable regulations. At that hearing, Sidhu’s bond eligibility must be considered and the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that physical custody is justified because he is a flight risk or danger. If legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without advance notice, a compliant post-deprivation hearing must occur within seven days. Following notice of a final removal order, detention is permitted solely to execute removal, with a bond hearing within the legally required timeframe. The clerk was directed to serve the facility, close the case, and enter judgment for Sidhu.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that re-detaining Sidhu after more than three years of ATD release without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment.
- An I-213 referencing disputed ATD violations, without supporting electronic records or an officer declaration, did not adequately justify Sidhu’s re-detention.
- The months-long gap between the last alleged violation and Sidhu’s arrest at a scheduled check-in contributed to the court’s conclusion that respondents had not shown the detention was justified and not clearly pretextual.
- The remedy was immediate release, while the TRO and appointment-of-counsel motions were denied as moot rather than decided on their merits.
- Future detention is restricted by detailed advance-notice, neutral-hearing, and clear-and-convincing-evidence requirements, subject to the order’s express arrest and final-removal provisions.
Why It Matters
The decision treats the government’s justification for renewed immigration custody as a distinct inquiry after a due-process violation has been established. It explains why a general assertion of ATD noncompliance may not suffice when the detainee disputes the allegations and the record lacks independently verifiable support. The timing of the alleged violations and arrest, together with the absence of criminal history or evidence of dangerousness, informed the chosen remedy.
The judgment does more than order release: it specifies procedures and proof required for future custody while preserving limited exceptions for legally justified arrest without advance notice and execution of a final removal order. Those terms define the actual scope of the relief granted to Sidhu.