Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Baljinder Singh, a citizen of India, entered the United States in May 2023, was encountered by Customs and Border Protection, and was served a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under INA section 212(a)(6)(A)(i). He was released on recognizance under the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program. His removal case is ongoing, he has no final removal order or criminal history, his asylum application is pending, and he has work authorization and a job.
On September 19, 2026, Singh reported to the Fresno ICE office after being told to attend an unscheduled paperwork appointment, and was arrested. ICE's Form I-213 alleges six ATD violations between March 2025 and May 2026: five missed biometric check-ins and one failed virtual home visit. Singh disputes the allegations. He declares that he checked in through SmartLINK weekly, reported in person and received home visits about monthly, raised app errors with ICE, and was told his photographs were received. He also says he was never told he was noncompliant and was not given the Punjabi interpreter he requested.
Singh filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that re-detention without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing violated Fifth Amendment due process. The government conceded that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs his detention under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), but argued the alleged violations justified arrest without a hearing. No party requested a hearing or more briefing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition, ordered Singh released immediately, and denied the TRO motion as moot. Relying on the government's concession, Rodriguez Vazquez, and its own prior orders, it concluded that Singh is detained under § 1226(a) and that re-detaining him after about three years of release without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
The court then asked whether the alleged violations excused the lack of a hearing. Although it would ordinarily order a bond hearing in such cases, it found the government had not provided sufficient, independent, verifiable documentation of the nature and substance of the alleged violations, contrasting cases where respondents submitted violation records and officer declarations or the petitioner admitted noncompliance. The court did not decide whether Singh actually missed check-ins. It held only that the allegations failed to show a change in circumstances justifying re-detention that was not clearly pretextual, noting that the last alleged violation was May 13, 2026, yet he was arrested only in September, after ICE ran a records check at a check-in. It also found no indication of danger to the community. A footnote observed that the I-213 may lack a presumption of reliability but can still be considered.
The order enjoins re-detention unless the government gives at least seven days' notice and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under § 1226(a), where it must show by clear and convincing evidence that Singh is a flight risk or danger. If arrest without advance notice is legally justified, a comparable hearing must follow within seven days. If Singh becomes subject to a final removal order, respondents may detain him solely to execute removal and must provide a bond hearing within the legally required time. The case was closed.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated Singh as detained under § 1226(a), a point the government conceded, and held that re-arresting him after years of release without a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process.
- Allegations of ATD violations, standing alone, did not excuse the lack of a hearing; the court required sufficient, independent, verifiable supporting documentation.
- The court did not resolve the factual dispute over the alleged violations; it found only that the government failed to show re-detention was justified and not clearly pretextual.
- The remedy was release plus an injunction requiring seven days' notice and a bond hearing, with a clear-and-convincing burden on the government, before any re-detention, subject to limited exceptions.
- The TRO motion was denied as moot because the court resolved the habeas petition itself on the existing record.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order, not binding precedent. Its value lies in showing how the Eastern District applies Ninth Circuit authority on § 1226(a) to the re-detention of people released on ATD. It suggests the remedy may turn on the government's evidence: where violations are documented, a post-deprivation bond hearing may suffice, but where documentation is thin and timing suggests pretext, release may follow.
Still open are whether Singh actually violated ATD terms, the merits of his asylum claim and removal case, and the outcome of any future bond hearing.