Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sultan Singh, a detained non-citizen, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention. On July 29, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered judgment on the petition and ordered Respondents to provide Singh a constitutionally compliant bond hearing at which the Department of Homeland Security would bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Singh presented a flight risk or danger to the community. A bond hearing was held before an immigration judge on August 12, 2026, pursuant to that order.
At the hearing, DHS questioned Singh about his March 27, 2025 arrest for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury, a felony under California Vehicle Code § 20001(a). Singh testified that he did not hit anyone and did not know what happened. DHS argued in closing that the felony arrest and the generalized danger posed by undocumented aliens in traffic accidents justified denying bond, and that Singh was a flight risk because of weak asylum claims. The immigration judge orally stated that DHS had met its burden by clear and convincing evidence, citing the serious nature of the pending felony charge and inconsistencies between Singh's testimony and the police reports.
The immigration judge's written order told a different story. It treated the hearing as an ordinary respondent-initiated custody redetermination under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 and concluded that because the respondent had failed to meet his burden of proof, the request for bond must be denied. On August 19, 2026, Singh moved to enforce the judgment, seeking immediate release or, in the alternative, a new bond hearing. Respondents opposed, arguing the written statement was a mistake and that the oral decision showed the burden was correctly placed on DHS.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion. As a threshold matter, it waived the prudential exhaustion requirement in this case for the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, citing decisions excusing exhaustion where prolonged detention causes irreparable harm, while stressing that review remained limited to whether the bond hearing was constitutionally adequate under the prior order.
On the merits, the court found the immigration judge's written memorandum violated its order. The judge wrongly treated the hearing as a respondent-initiated redetermination under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 — an administrative remedy where the non-citizen bears the burden — instead of a hearing under the court's order requiring DHS to prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence. The written conclusion that the respondent failed to meet his burden explicitly placed the burden on Singh, which the court deemed clear legal error.
The court rejected the argument that the oral decision controlled: EOIR Policy Manual § 8.3(e)(7) does not give an oral ruling priority over an inconsistent written order, which would be highly prejudicial on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court ordered that (1) the motion to enforce is granted; (2) within 14 days of service of the order, unless Singh consents to a later date, Respondents must provide an individualized bond hearing complying with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), including consideration of financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release; (3) Singh must receive at least 72 hours' notice, the right to counsel, and the right to appear, with counsel receiving notice if an appearance is filed; and (4) Respondents must file a notice of compliance identifying the hearing outcome and a copy of the immigration judge's written order.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may enforce its habeas orders through a motion to enforce judgment, the usual method to compel compliance with an earlier judgment.
- A written bond order that explicitly places the burden of proof on the detainee, contrary to a court order assigning it to the government, is clear legal error requiring a new hearing.
- The new hearing must be held within 14 days of service unless the petitioner consents otherwise, with at least 72 hours' notice, the right to counsel and to appear, and compliance with the Singh v. Holder and Hernandez v. Sessions standards.
- Exhaustion may be waived case-by-case due to irreparable harm from prolonged detention, but the waiver does not broaden review beyond the constitutional adequacy of the bond hearing.
- The EOIR Policy Manual does not give an oral decision priority over an inconsistent written order misstating the burden of proof.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores that the written bond order is the critical record for Board of Immigration Appeals review, so a written order stating the wrong burden cannot be dismissed as a harmless mistake even when the oral ruling was correct. It confirms that federal courts will enforce their habeas judgments and order new hearings with concrete protections — timing, notice, counsel, and individualized findings — when an immigration judge's written order fails to apply the mandated burden of proof, even if the oral decision applied it correctly.