Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anuj Kulbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States near Otay Mesa, California on January 26, 2024, and settled openly in La Verne, California. About a month later he filed an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which remained pending. On March 3, 2025, a DHS deportation officer served him with a Notice to Appear but did not take him into custody; he remained at liberty subject to ICE check-ins and home visits and reported for all of them.
On September 28, 2026, Singh missed a scheduled ICE home visit because of a family emergency. When an officer called, he answered, joined a video call as requested, and reported in person to an ICE office as directed; the officer warned him but did not detain him. About ten days later he was directed to report for a check-in on October 14, 2026. He reported as instructed, and ICE detained him without notice or a hearing. He has no criminal record and has never been arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime in the United States.
Singh was continuously detained from October 14, 2026 onward, and no judge or neutral decisionmaker held a hearing on whether his detention was necessary. His removal case remained pending before the Immigration Court in Adelanto with no order of removal. On October 27, 2026, he filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus and a Temporary Restraining Order application, arguing that detention without notice and a hearing violated procedural and substantive Due Process, and seeking release on the conditions that applied before October 14, 2026 or, alternatively, an individualized custody hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Michael B. Kaufman granted the petition. Respondents never appeared or filed any opposition, and the court construed that non-opposition as a concession of Singh's due process claims, citing Carrillo v. Mullin and other recent decisions from the Central District of California and other districts. The court noted a reported U.S. Attorney's Office practice of making no appearance and filing no answer when the government does not intend to oppose an immigration habeas petition after screening it on the merits.
The court incorporated its October 30, 2026 TRO order, which had found Singh likely to succeed on his due process claims challenging detention without notice or a hearing. In light of Respondents' continued non-opposition, the court found that Singh's detention violated due process. It ordered judgment entered granting the petition, a writ of habeas corpus requiring his continued release from DHS custody, and a prohibition on re-detaining him absent a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which the Government must show changed circumstances warranting re-detention.
The court also ordered Respondents to file a status report within three calendar days confirming compliance. The ruling followed explicit warnings that failure to respond to the TRO application or the petition would be deemed consent to granting the requested relief, and Respondents did not respond to either.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court granted habeas corpus relief to an immigrant detained by ICE without notice or a hearing, finding the detention violated due process.
- The government's complete failure to appear or oppose the petition was construed as a concession of the petitioner's due process claims.
- The court ordered the petitioner's continued release and barred re-detention absent a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker where the government must show changed circumstances.
- The petitioner had lived openly in the community, complied with all ICE check-ins, and had no criminal record when detained at a scheduled check-in.
- The decision relied on recent federal precedent holding that failure to oppose a habeas petition concedes the claims asserted.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that immigrants detained by ICE are entitled to due process protections, including notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before detention. The court's willingness to treat the government's silence as a concession places the burden on Respondents to defend detention decisions, particularly where the petitioner has lived openly, complied with reporting requirements, and has no criminal history.
The ruling also highlights a reported U.S. Attorney's Office practice of declining to appear or respond in immigration habeas cases the government does not intend to oppose. Combined with the court's treatment of non-opposition as a concession, this may encourage more detained immigrants to challenge detention through habeas petitions when procedural safeguards were skipped.