Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Navjot Singh, a noncitizen and native of India, entered the United States on or about December 2, 2022, was briefly detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and was released on parole on December 5, 2022. He applied for asylum and, according to the petition, complied with required immigration obligations. In August 2026, immigration authorities re-detained him at the ICE detention facility in Adelanto, California. The petition alleged that officials identified no intervening criminal conduct, violation of release conditions, missed immigration appointment, danger to the community, flight risk, or other material change in circumstances, and that he received neither advance notice nor a pre-deprivation hearing; the order also states that he remained in immigration custody.
Singh filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 10, 2026, challenging the legality of his ongoing detention under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and 8 C.F.R. §§ 287.3 and 287.8. He sought immediate release or, alternatively, release unless the government provided a bond hearing; injunctions against re-detention except after a custody hearing before a neutral arbiter with the government bearing a clear-and-convincing burden; an injunction against re-detention during ongoing Section 240 proceedings; and costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
On September 11, 2026, the court issued the Notice of General Order 26-05 and Briefing Schedule, directing respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Respondents were required to file a notice of appearance by September 14, 2026, and an answer showing cause by September 18, 2026, but filed neither. On October 1, 2026, the court ordered respondents to show cause by October 5, 2026, why they had failed to comply, and respondents again filed no response and sought no extension.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge granted the petition on the unrebutted record. The order explains that § 2241(c)(3) reaches custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law, and that statutory limits on review of discretionary detention decisions do not eliminate jurisdiction over related constitutional claims or questions of law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, respondents were required to answer and certify the true cause of detention. Because they repeatedly failed to respond despite notice and nearly five weeks to oppose the petition, the court treated their failure to file under Local Rule 7-12 as consent to the requested relief and accepted that Singh was in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law as alleged.
The operative relief is broader than a bare release. The petition is granted; respondents are ordered to immediately release Singh from custody; they are enjoined from re-detaining him unless re-detention is ordered at a custody hearing before a neutral arbiter where the government proves flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence; and they are enjoined from re-detaining him while Section 240 proceedings remain ongoing, including any direct appeal from an immigration judge’s dismissal, absent a change in circumstances. Respondents must also file a status report confirming release within two days.
The order does not itself award fees. It states that any fee motion must be filed within the deadlines set by the Equal Access to Justice Act and local rules, and the court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate that motion and other collateral enforcement issues.
Key Takeaways
- Respondents’ failure to file a notice of appearance, an answer, or any response to the later show-cause order left Singh’s petition unrebutted.
- The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2243’s return requirement and Local Rule 7-12 in treating the government’s noncompliance as consent to the habeas relief.
- The order grants the petition and requires immediate release, plus a status report confirming release within two days.
- Any renewed detention must satisfy the specified neutral-arbiter hearing and clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, and re-detention during ongoing Section 240 proceedings is barred absent changed circumstances.
- Attorney’s fees are not awarded by this order; any fee motion remains subject to EAJA and local deadlines under the court’s retained jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a district-court magistrate judge may resolve an immigration habeas petition when the custodians repeatedly ignore orders to justify detention. The reasoning rests on the unrebutted petition, the statutory duty to certify the true cause of detention, and the local rule treating a failure to file as consent, rather than on a contested evidentiary comparison.
The relief also separates present release from future custody decisions: Singh must be released now, while any later detention is conditioned on the order’s hearing, burden-of-proof, and changed-circumstances limits. Fee entitlement and enforcement matters remain open under the court’s retained jurisdiction.