Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bhupinder Singh, a citizen of India, came to the United States on a student visa in December 2023 to study for a master's degree. When his money ran out and his family could no longer support him, he took a package delivery job that he believed was legitimate but that was a scheme to defraud an elderly person. He was arrested during a delivery in August 2024, pleaded no contest to felony theft from an elder adult, and received probation and 270 days of confinement at a half-time credit rate.
The conviction ended his student visa in February 2025. After his jail term, the Department of Homeland Security charged him as removable, and he has been in immigration detention since April 2025. An immigration judge denied bond on November 18, 2025, finding danger and flight risk. Singh filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in January 2026, and the government moved to dismiss, arguing he is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). After counsel was appointed, the amended petition raised substantive due process, procedural due process, and warrant claims; the warrant claim was later withdrawn. He was ordered removed in April 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal in September 2026, and the Ninth Circuit has temporarily stayed removal pending his petition for review.
The Court’s Holding
This is a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, not a final order; it is referred to Judge Sherriff, with objections due in 14 days. The magistrate judge found that Singh entered on a valid student visa rather than illegally, as the government asserted, and recommended finding his detention governed by § 1226(a). The reasoning relied on district court decisions involving student-visa holders and on Prieto-Romero v. Clark, which says a person with a final removal order stayed pending review may be detained under § 1226(a).
On procedural due process, the magistrate judge recommended granting the petition. The immigration judge had cited the felony elder-theft conviction and vulnerable victim as showing danger, and reasoned that the conviction left only harder forms of relief, heightening flight risk. Singh argued the judge ignored his documents, including a statement about the conviction, proof of address, school records, character letters, and a prospective sponsor's identification. The government did not respond to that argument. The transcript shows counsel said the clerk would make the documents visible shortly, but nothing shows that happened or that the judge reviewed them, and the judge never discussed the circumstances of the conviction or community ties. Citing Cole v. Holder, the magistrate judge concluded that where any indication exists that evidence was not considered, a catchall statement cannot sustain the decision.
On substantive due process, the magistrate judge recommended denial. Singh had been detained about eighteen months, eleven since his bond hearing. Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland rejected a claim after fourteen months following a first hearing, Torres found twenty-one months of pretrial detention permissible, and Prieto-Romero upheld forty-one months. Singh did not show his case differs. The recommended remedy is a new bond hearing under § 1226(a) and its regulations; the findings do not address burden of proof.
Key Takeaways
- If adopted, the recommendation treats a student-visa holder placed in removal proceedings as detained under § 1226(a), not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- A bond denial may not stand where the record suggests the immigration judge did not consider the detainee's submitted evidence, even if the decision recites danger and flight risk.
- Here, a transcript showing the documents were announced but not shown to be reviewed, plus a decision silent about their contents, was enough.
- Eighteen months of total detention did not support a substantive due process claim given Ninth Circuit decisions upholding longer detention.
- Nothing is final: objections are due in 14 days, the district judge must decide whether to adopt the recommendation, and the removal petition remains pending in the Ninth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the Ninth Circuit's review framework in Martinez v. Clark to a concrete record problem: evidence proffered but apparently never viewed. Its remedy is narrow, a new hearing rather than release, and it does not decide how a new hearing should allocate the burden of proof or what its outcome should be.
Because it is a magistrate judge's recommendation, it has no binding effect until the district judge acts, and it is not a published precedential opinion. Its rejection of the prolonged-detention claim leaves open that a longer detention or a different record could produce a different result, and it does not address the pending Ninth Circuit petition.