Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Akshdeep Singh, a noncitizen currently detained at Adelanto ICE Processing Center, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 22, 2026. After the court denied the initial petition but granted leave to amend, Singh filed a First Amended Petition alleging that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers violated 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by detaining him without first obtaining a warrant.
According to the petition and the I-213, Singh was lawfully admitted to the United States in October 2022 on a nonimmigrant visa and had maintained stable employment and community ties. On September 17, 2026, while on his way to work, he was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by ICE officers conducting an operation targeting someone else. An officer questioned Singh about his citizenship, determined that he had no legal documents, and within minutes a first-line supervisor authorized an administrative warrant, which was issued the same day. Singh was transported to an ICE office, received an initial custody determination less than three hours after arrest, and was issued a notice to appear the following morning. He requested a custody redetermination by an immigration judge but had not yet received one.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge denied the First Amended Petition with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The court reasoned that, based on the facts presented, if there was any violation of § 1226(a) because the warrant was not formally issued before Singh was detained, it was a slight one. The I-213 showed that officers questioned Singh, confirmed their suspicion about his immigration status, called back to a supervisor for authorization, and only then transported him to the ICE office; an initial custody determination was made less than three hours after arrest and a notice to appear was issued the next morning.
The court relied on Nunez Yanez v. Mullin, described as collecting cases finding that slight variations from the statutory requirements of § 1226(a) do not justify habeas relief, and on Tsendayush v. Bondi for the proposition that the dispositive question is not whether the arrest was procedurally defective but whether the petitioner is presently entitled to release from custody. Because a supervisor had authorized the warrant before Singh was taken into custody and the custody determination and notice to appear quickly followed, the court concluded that any slight delay in completing the already-authorized warrant would not warrant release under the circumstances presented.
The court separately declined to consider whether ordering a bond hearing would be appropriate because Singh specifically disclaimed requesting that relief and instead urged outright release.
Key Takeaways
- A technical violation of the warrant requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) may not justify habeas relief where the violation is slight and supervisory authorization was obtained before the petitioner was taken into custody.
- The order turns on the specific sequence here: questioning, confirmation of immigration-status suspicion, supervisory authorization, transport, a custody determination within three hours, and a notice to appear the next morning.
- A habeas petitioner who disclaims a request for a bond hearing forecloses the court from considering that alternative remedy in the same proceeding.
- Under Tsendayush v. Bondi as quoted by the court, the dispositive question in this habeas proceeding is not whether the arrest was procedurally defective but whether the petitioner is presently entitled to release from custody.
- The First Amended Petition, not the original petition, was denied with prejudice, and judgment was directed to be entered accordingly.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that minor procedural irregularities in the timing of administrative warrants under § 1226(a) will not automatically produce release from immigration detention, especially where the government obtained supervisory authorization before custody and completed the custody determination and charging document promptly afterward. It reinforces that habeas relief requires a showing of present entitlement to release, not merely a technical statutory violation.
The ruling also shows how the relief requested can shape the court's analysis: by disclaiming a bond hearing and seeking only outright release, Singh left the court to decide the petition on the release claim, which the court rejected as too slight to warrant that remedy.