Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Akashdeep Singh, an immigration detainee, was briefly held after entering the United States in March 2023 and then released on an Order of Release on Recognizance that required him to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As recounted in the order, respondents did not dispute that he complied. He was arrested for criminal mischief in March 2025, but the Department of Homeland Security did not revoke his release, and he kept attending ICE appointments. On August 6, 2026, ICE told him to appear at an ICE office on August 8. According to the petition, he appeared voluntarily and was taken into custody without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
Singh filed a habeas corpus petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order. Because the court had already addressed the legal question in earlier orders, it directed respondents to show cause whether any factual or legal issue distinguished this case and justified denying the petition. Respondents conceded that Singh had been released and that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs his detention. They argued that he violated his release terms by being arrested for criminal mischief and trespass, both misdemeanors, and disputed that his release created a liberty interest. They did not object to a bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition. It reiterated its prior view that when a noncitizen previously released under § 1226(a) is re-detained pending removal proceedings, the Due Process Clause requires a bond hearing at which the government must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person is a flight risk or danger to the community. It relied on its earlier decisions, including Luis Alberto R.C. v. Murray, 817 F. Supp. 3d 917 (E.D. Cal. 2025).
Applying that rule, the court rejected the misdemeanor-arrest argument. The arrest did not alter the analysis, and respondents had not shown that Singh was convicted of the charges, so he kept a liberty interest grounded in his earlier release. The court also observed that pre-deprivation process is generally required absent evidence of urgent concerns, citing Guillermo M. R. v. Kaiser, 791 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2025). Respondents identified none. ICE did not re-detain Singh for over a year after the March 2025 arrest and did so only when he appeared at its office as directed. Respondents therefore failed to show that circumstances warranted a post-deprivation hearing.
The relief has two parts. Respondents must release Singh immediately. They are also enjoined from re-detaining him unless they show, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he is a flight risk or danger to the community such that custody is legally justified. The clerk was directed to close the case, terminate pending motions and enter judgment for petitioner. A footnote states that the order does not address detention if Singh becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Key Takeaways
- In this court's view, a noncitizen previously released under § 1226(a) and later re-detained has a due process liberty interest that requires a bond hearing with the burden on the government.
- The government must meet a clear and convincing evidence standard to justify custody based on flight risk or danger to the community.
- A misdemeanor arrest without a shown conviction did not defeat the liberty interest in this case.
- A year-long delay before re-detention, and re-detention at a voluntary ICE appearance, undercut any claim of urgent concerns that might excuse a pre-deprivation hearing.
- The order does not decide whether or how Singh may be detained if a final order of removal becomes executable.
Why It Matters
This is a short order from a single district judge that applies the court's own earlier decisions rather than announcing a new rule. It is not binding on other judges or courts, though it is a consistent data point in how this court handles re-detention after release under § 1226(a). The government's concession that § 1226(a) governs, and its lack of opposition to a bond hearing, narrowed the dispute to whether a misdemeanor arrest changed the result.
The order resolves only Singh's case. It does not say what evidence the government could present at a future hearing, and it does not address the effect of a criminal conviction or an executable removal order. Because the court ordered release and barred re-detention absent a hearing, the government's route to custody is the pre-deprivation hearing described in the order.