Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Malkit Singh, a noncitizen proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he fled India fearing harm because of his political beliefs and entered the United States without inspection near Lukeville, Arizona, on or about April 8, 2023. DHS issued a Notice to Appear dated April 11, 2023, filed with the immigration court on or about April 27, 2023. According to the petition, he was released and lived in the community as a non-detained respondent in removal proceedings, complied with his release and reporting conditions, and filed an asylum and withholding application on or about June 29, 2023. That application was pending when he filed his petition.
Singh alleged that on or about September 12, 2026, after more than three years in the community, ICE re-detained him without changed circumstances, without written notice of the reason, and without any opportunity to contest the detention. On September 18, 2026, he filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming violations of procedural due process and statutory rights, and he consented to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The court issued a General Order 26-05 notice requiring an answer within seven days. Respondents filed no answer and did not otherwise communicate with the court, so the court deemed the petition unopposed. Singh also filed an ex parte application for judgment on the pleadings.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Anna Y. Park granted the petition on procedural due process grounds. The court reasoned that the Due Process Clause protects all persons in the United States, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, and that Singh had a substantial interest in remaining free after more than three years in the community following his release, citing Pinchi v. Noem. It treated the earlier release as reflecting a determination that he was neither a danger nor a flight risk.
Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, which the court said must account for the heightened governmental interest in the immigration detention context under Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, the court found that all three favored Singh. Because Respondents did not respond, the record contained no evidence or argument of a significant government interest, and it was uncontroverted that Singh had complied with his release terms and posed no apparent flight or danger risk. The court concluded he had shown entitlement to relief and that immediate release was warranted. It framed the result as Singh having sufficiently alleged a claim in light of non-opposition, and it did not separately address his statutory claims.
The court ordered Respondents to release Singh immediately to the same conditions in place before the current detention, to return seized belongings including identification and work authorization documents, and to file a Notice of Release within three days confirming that return. It enjoined Respondents from re-detaining Singh absent strict compliance with due process and all applicable statutes and regulations, and it dismissed the ex parte application as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The order rests on an unopposed record, so the facts about Singh's release, compliance, and re-detention come from his petition and were never tested by a government response.
- Respondents' failure to answer under an expedited habeas schedule led the court to deem the petition unopposed and to find no evidence of any government interest in continued detention.
- The court treated a prior release followed by years of community residence as creating a significant liberty interest that weighed heavily in the Mathews analysis.
- Relief was limited to release, restoration of prior conditions, return of documents, a notice of compliance, and a bar on re-detention without compliance with due process and applicable law.
- The order does not resolve Singh's asylum application or removal proceedings, and it does not decide his statutory claims.
Why It Matters
This is a short minute order resting largely on the government's non-response, so its persuasive weight is limited. It is a district-level ruling by a magistrate judge acting on consent, and it does not purport to set broad rules. It does illustrate how courts in this district analyze the re-detention of noncitizens who were previously released, applying the Mathews framework with citations to Ninth Circuit and Northern District authority.
Several questions remain open: whether the government could justify detention with evidence in a contested case, what specific process would suffice before re-detention, and how a court would rule on the statutory theories. The injunction does not bar re-detention outright; it requires strict compliance with due process, statutes, and regulations. Singh's immigration case continues separately.