(HC) Singh v. Andrews
1:25-cv-00801
| E.D. Cal. | Jul 11, 2025Background
- Harman Singh, a 19-year-old Sikh asylum seeker from India, was released from DHS custody in January 2024 after being deemed not a flight risk or a danger to the community.
- Singh attended all immigration check-ins and hearings, lawfully worked, and participated actively in his community while removal proceedings under Section 240 were pending.
- On May 27, 2025, Singh was arrested by ICE agents without a warrant after leaving a scheduled immigration court hearing, despite the judge not having ruled on the government’s oral motion to dismiss his case.
- Following his arrest, Singh was held at a Kern County detention center and filed a habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking release.
- The government opposed the motion, arguing Singh was subject to expedited removal proceedings, not Section 240, and not entitled to release or a bond hearing.
- The court converted Singh’s motion to a preliminary injunction and granted immediate release, conditioning any re-detention on a bond hearing with a clear and convincing burden on the government.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Bond Hearing Before Re-Detention | Due process requires a hearing before liberty is revoked. | Singh was properly detained under expedited removal; no hearing needed. | Bond hearing is required; pre-deprivation process is mandated. |
| Application of Due Process to Interior Noncitizens | Singh’s ties and lawful presence trigger due process protections. | Only statutory rights for applicants at border; due process inapposite. | Due process attaches for a person inside the U.S. |
| Administrative Exhaustion Requirement | No administrative remedy was available or exhaustion would be futile. | Singh could have sought bond hearing before Immigration Court. | Exhaustion requirement waived due to futility and record facts. |
| Standard for Preliminary Injunction | Constitutional injury and unlawful detention justify immediate relief. | Relief sought constitutes a mandatory injunction needing a higher standard. | Higher standard met; injunction warranted to prevent harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (Due process protections apply to all persons in the U.S., including noncitizens)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (Due process requires hearing before revocation of parole)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (Section 1225(b) mandates immigration detention without bond)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 796 (Clear and convincing evidence required to detain on flight risk or danger grounds)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Sets out factors for procedural due process balancing)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Requirements for preliminary injunctions)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (Procedural due process requires a hearing before deprivation of liberty)