Singh v. Casey et al

- 1 - 26cv0647
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
RAMANJOT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASEY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00647-BAS-SBC
ORDER:
(1) 	GRANTING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1); AND
(2) 	DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (ECF No. 2)
Petitioner Ramanjot Singh filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. 	(ECF No. 1.) 	Petitioner, a native of India, entered the United States on
October 15, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Respondents released him on a $20,000 bond, apparently
finding he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 1, 2, 18.)
Petitioner has complied fully with all the conditions of his release. (Id.)
Nonetheless, on November 1, 2025, Respondents re-detained Petitioner without
notice or an opportunity to be heard. 	(Id. at ¶ 3.) 	Because of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025),
Case 3:26-cv-00647-BAS-SBC Document 5 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv0647
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
Respondents have determined that Petitioner’s detention is now mandatory under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225. (Id. at ¶¶ 4–5, 20.) Petitioner filed this Petition seeking immediate release on the
same terms and conditions as he was previously released. (ECF No. 1.) He simultaneously
filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 2.)
The Court denied ex parte relief on the Motion for the Temporary Restraining Order.
(ECF No. 3.) It indicated it would consider the Motion for Injunctive Relief after giving
Respondents an opportunity to respond. 	(Id.) 	The Court further provided notice that it
would consolidate the Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits of
the Petition under Rule 65(a)(2). (Id.)
The Government filed a Return acknowledging “that Petitioner is detained under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be
held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (ECF No. 4.)
This Court has previously held in multiple cases that it agrees with the Central
District in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D.
Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), that an individual in Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory
detention under Section 1225. See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322-BAS-BJW,
2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Zayas v. Gordon, No. 26-cv-00237-BAS-
DEB, 2026 WL 266275 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00268-BAS-
VET, 2026 WL 266496 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). 	Hence, for all of the reasons stated in
these previous opinions, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
Because Petitioner was already ordered released with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”)
and has not violated any of the conditions imposed by that NTA, the Court finds an
additional bond hearing is not necessary. Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ:
The Court ORDERS that Petitioner Ramanjot Singh (A#205-082-137) be
released forthwith on the same terms and conditions as he was previously
released in October 2011.
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-00647-BAS-SBC Document 5 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv0647
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
In light of this Court’s order granting the Petition, the Court DENIES AS MOOT
the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 2). The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 13, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00647-BAS-SBC Document 5 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3