Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mandeep Singh, represented by counsel, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Central District of California on October 15, 2026. The petition alleges that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is holding him in Adelanto in violation of the Constitution and federal law. As the court summarized the petition, he had been released on parole and supervised by ICE for more than 14 years, and he was re-detained on August 20, 2026, at his asylum interview, without prior notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The court incorporated the petition's account of his background and immigration history rather than repeating it.
The same day, respondents were served with a notice of General Order 26-05 and a briefing schedule requiring a notice of appearance by October 19, 2026, and an answer by October 22, 2026. They filed neither and never responded to the petition. The court stated its understanding that this silence was a deliberate choice, not an oversight. Citing the party-presentation principle in United States v. Sineneng-Smith and the Supreme Court's statement in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges that courts are essentially passive instruments of government and points not argued will not be considered, the court concluded it could grant the petition on the absence of opposition alone.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not rest on default alone. Reviewing the petition, it said it was satisfied that the petition sets forth a claim that Singh, having been paroled and supervised by ICE for more than 14 years, had a protected liberty interest in his continued freedom from custody. It also found a claim that re-detaining him at his asylum interview, without prior notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, violated due process. It cited Mathews v. Eldridge, Pinchi v. Noem, and a Central District decision, Perez Bueno v. Janecka. Because respondents offered no opposition, the order contains no contested fact-finding, no weighing of any government justification for the detention, and no extended Mathews analysis. The due process conclusion rests on allegations that went unanswered.
Based on its review of the petition and respondents' decision not to oppose the relief sought, the court ordered the following. Judgment is to be entered granting the petition. Respondents must release Singh within 24 hours of entry of the order, under the same conditions that applied before his re-detention. Respondents and those acting in concert with them who receive actual notice are enjoined from re-detaining him on the same circumstances underlying the August 20, 2026 detention unless they first provide individualized written notice of the grounds and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decisionmaker, except upon a showing of genuine exigent circumstances or other lawful grounds consistent with the Constitution. Respondents must also return his personal property, identification documents, employment authorization documentation, and other belongings confiscated in connection with that detention. Petitioner may seek reasonable costs and attorney fees after judgment is entered.
Key Takeaways
- Respondents' failure to file a notice of appearance or answer by the court-set deadlines, which the court viewed as deliberate, led the court to treat the petition as unopposed and to say it could grant relief on that basis alone.
- The due process conclusion rests on the petition's unrebutted allegations that a person paroled and supervised for more than 14 years was re-detained at an asylum interview without notice or a hearing.
- The injunction is conditional rather than absolute: it bars re-detention on the same circumstances absent individualized written notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, but allows it on a showing of genuine exigent circumstances or other lawful grounds consistent with the Constitution.
- Release must occur within 24 hours on the same conditions as before re-detention, and confiscated property and documents must be returned.
- The order does not award fees or costs; it says only that petitioner may seek them after judgment is entered.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order resolving an unopposed petition, so it carries little precedential weight. It does not decide what process is due in contested cases, and it does not hold that every long-term parolee is entitled to a hearing before re-detention. Its reasoning is brief and leans on decisions from other courts, including one from the Northern District of California and one from the Central District, rather than announcing a new rule.
Its practical value is as an example of how a court in this district responded when the government did not engage with an immigration habeas petition, and of the relief it granted: release, a conditional bar on re-detention, return of documents, and a later fee request. Still open are the asylum proceedings, which the order does not address, any future re-detention on lawful grounds or exigent circumstances, and any fee request.