Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Harjeet Singh, a 31-year-old citizen of India, entered the United States near Naco, Arizona on or about May 13, 2023 without admission or parole. He was released on his own recognizance the same day due to overcapacity, and the Department of Homeland Security issued him a Notice to Appear dated May 15, 2023. Singh was subject to Alternative to Detention program reporting requirements.
On October 3, 2026, Singh reported as directed to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. A deportation officer determined that Singh had been arrested on September 26, 2026 for driving under the influence, although respondents did not assert that Singh was convicted of this offense, and Singh had no other criminal history. ICE officials detained Singh that day. Singh requested a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge but had not yet received one, with respondents stating only that a hearing should be scheduled in the near future. Singh filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for temporary restraining order, challenging his detention under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and seeking release.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge framework to analyze Singh's due process claim. First, the court found that Singh's initial release established a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, either because he was released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or because his release created a reasonable expectation that he would retain his liberty so long as he was not a flight risk or danger. The court noted that the government released Singh on his own recognizance and required periodic reporting to an ICE office, which created such a reasonable expectation.
Second, the court found a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation absent a pre-detention hearing before a neutral arbiter. Singh voluntarily appeared at ICE offices as directed, and respondents did not identify any specific flight risk or danger concerns. Respondents failed to establish any urgency or explain why they could not have provided Singh a pre-deprivation hearing. Finally, while acknowledging the government's significant interest in immigration enforcement, the court found that respondents had not established that providing a pre-deprivation hearing would produce a delay or significant burden.
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered respondents to release Singh immediately. Respondents were enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Singh unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified. The court directed the Clerk to close the case, terminate any pending motions as moot, enter judgment for petitioner, and serve the Golden State Annex with a copy of the order. The order expressly did not address the circumstances in which respondents may detain Singh if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration detainee released on his own recognizance with periodic reporting requirements has a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, either under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or because the release creates a reasonable expectation of continued liberty absent flight risk or danger.
- Due process requires a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter before re-detaining such an individual, absent evidence of urgent concerns.
- The government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing that the detainee is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify physical custody.
- A pending arrest without conviction, combined with voluntary compliance with reporting requirements and no identified flight risk or danger concerns, does not justify detention without a hearing.
- The court's order does not address detention circumstances if the petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that immigration detainees who have been released into the community, even without formal admission or parole, acquire due process protections that limit the government's ability to re-detain them without procedural safeguards. The court's application of the Mathews framework emphasizes that the government's general interest in immigration enforcement does not automatically outweigh an individual's liberty interest when the government has previously determined that detention was unnecessary.
The requirement of clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker sets a meaningful procedural barrier to re-detention, ensuring that immigration authorities cannot simply revoke release based on arrests alone without demonstrating actual flight risk or danger. This ruling may affect how ICE handles custody redeterminations for individuals in Alternatives to Detention programs who are arrested but not convicted of offenses.