Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:25-cv-3784-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JASHANDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE,
Respondent.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3784-CAB-AHG
ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Petitioner Jashandeep Singh’s amended petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 4 (“Petition”).] Petitioner claims
his nearly 15-month detention by immigration authorities is unconstitutional. 	[Id. at 6.]
He seeks a bond hearing. [Id. at 7.] For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the request
for a writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS that Petitioner receive an individualized bond
hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an Indian citizen who entered the United States without inspection near
San Ysidro, California on January 8, 2025. [Doc. No. 7 at 2.] He was determined to be an
inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), placed into removal proceedings, and
taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b). [Id.] He has remained in custody since then.
Case 3:25-cv-03784-CAB-AHG Document 11 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
3:25-cv-3784-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioner originally had his individual merits hearing scheduled for March 18, 2026.
[Doc. No. 10 at 2.] However, Respondent informed the Court that his hearing was delayed
until April 15, 2026, due to the Court not having a Dogri interpreter for Petitioner. [Id.]
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]” The petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Jurisdiction
Respondent challenges this Court’s jurisdiction based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). [Doc.
No. 7 at 3–4.] 	This Court and innumerable others have repeatedly rejected the same
jurisdictional argument under similar factual scenarios. Because Petitioner challenges the
legality of his detention and not the decision to commence proceedings, the adjudication
of his removal case, or any action to execute a removal order, the Court rejects
Respondent’s jurisdictional arguments by adopting and incorporating by reference the
same reasoning expressed in Chavez v. Noem, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1138–39 (S.D. Cal.
2025).
B. 	Due Process Claim
Petitioner argues that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing—nearly fifteen
months—is unconstitutional. 	[Petition at 6.] 	Respondent counters that the relevant
statutory language of § 1225(b)(1) and Supreme Court precedent require Petitioner’s
detention until the resolution of his removal proceedings. [Doc. No. 7 at 5–10.] The Court
has previously discussed that while Supreme Court precedent does establish that the
statutory language of § 1225(b) mandates detention, the Supreme Court did not decide the
Case 3:25-cv-03784-CAB-AHG Document 11 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
3:25-cv-3784-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
constitutional question of whether indefinite detention is permitted. See L.R.G. v. LaRose,
3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13 at 5–6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026).
As to the constitutional question, this Court recently held in L.R.G. that a due process
violation may occur when § 1225(b) results in practically indefinite civil detention. 3:25-
CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13, at *6; see Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772
(S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in concluding
that 	an 	unreasonably 	prolonged 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1225(b) 	without 	an
individualized bond hearing violates due process.”). Respondent’s position has also been
questioned by the Ninth Circuit:
We have grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged
detention without any process is constitutional or that those who founded our
democracy precisely to protect against the government’s arbitrary
deprivation of liberty would have thought so. Arbitrary civil detention is not
a feature of our American government. “[L]iberty is the norm, and detention
prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” Civil
detention violates due process outside of “certain special and narrow
nonpunitive circumstances.”
Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256–57 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted)
(alteration in original).
Though there is no brightline test for a violation, this Court and many others have
used the Banda test which considers the following six factors to determine when detention
under § 1225(b) violates due process: (1) the total length of detention to date, which is the
most important factor; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) the conditions of
detention; (4) delays in removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in removal
proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings
will result in a final order of removal. 	Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1106
(W.D. Wash. 2019).
The first factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor given that he has been detained for over
a year. See Sibomana v. LaRose, No. 22-CV-933-LL-NLS, 2023 WL 3028093, at *4 (S.D.
Cal. Apr. 20, 2023) (finding that courts are typically wary of continued custody without a
Case 3:25-cv-03784-CAB-AHG Document 11 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
3:25-cv-3784-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
bond hearing when detention extends beyond one year). 	Regarding the second factor,
which 	consists 	of the 	“anticipated 	duration 	of 	all 	removal 	proceedings—including
administrative and judicial appeals[,]” Petitioner’s individual merits hearing is not until
April 15, 2026 and further detention beyond it, regardless of its outcome, is likely. [Doc.
No. 10 at 2.] Accordingly, the second factor favors Petitioner. [Id.] As to the third Banda
factor, Petitioner’s confinement is similar to penal confinement because, as the Court
explained with respect to the petitioner in L.R.G., who was also detained at Otay Mesa
Detention Center, Petitioner is detained “in a secure facility, guarded by armed personnel,
and has restricted access to outdoor space, activities, and communication.” No. 3:25-CV-
3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13, at *8 (S.D. Cal. January 16, 2026). Thus, the third factor
favors Petitioner.
As to the fourth and fifth factors, the only delay pleaded is the one-month delay for
Petitioner’s individual merits hearing. 	Respondent states that it “was reset for the
immigration court to provide a Dogri interpreter for Petitioner, who does not speak Punjabi
as was previously indicated.” [Doc. No. 10 at 2.] The Court finds the fourth and factors
to be effectively neutral. 	Finally, the Court finds the sixth factor neutral as it is unclear
what the result of Petitioner’s removal proceedings will be.
In sum, factors one (the most important), two, and three weigh for Petitioner, while
factors four, five, and six are neutral. The Court thus concludes that Petitioner’s continued
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1) without a bond hearing violates his right to due
process. 	Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing before an
immigration judge.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioner’s prolonged detention without
a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 	The Court
therefore GRANTS the writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS Respondent to provide
Petitioner an individualized bond hearing by April 8, 2026. The Clerk of the Court shall
Case 3:25-cv-03784-CAB-AHG Document 11 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
3:25-cv-3784-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
close the case on April 10, 2026 unless the Court is notified that the bond hearing did not
occur.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03784-CAB-AHG Document 11 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5