Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SATVINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01266-MIS-KRS
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; PAMELA BONDI, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of the United
States; TODD M. LYONS, in his official
capacity as Acting Director and Senior
Official Performing the Duties of the
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA,
in her official capacity as Field Office
Director of the El Paso Field Office of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Enforcement and Removal Operations; and
GEORGE DEDOS, in his official capacity as
Warden of the Cibola County Correctional
Center,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Satvinder Singh’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed December 19, 2025.1 The same day, December 19,
2025, the Court issued an Order Directing Service and Order to Show Cause (“Order”), ECF No.
4, which, inter alia, instructs that “Respondents shall respond to the Petition and SHOW CAUSE
why the Petition shall not be granted within three (3) days of service of the Petition.” Order at 2.
1 Petitioner also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (erroneously titled “Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus”). ECF No. 2.
Case 1:25-cv-01266-MIS-KRS Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On January 2, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a Motion for Extension of Time
(“Motion”) requesting, inter alia, an extension of the deadline to respond to the Petition to two
weeks after proper service. ECF No. 8 at 4. On January 6, 2026, the Court granted the federal
Respondents’ Motion and extended the federal Respondents’ deadline to respond to the Petition to
two weeks after proper service.2 ECF No. 9 at 2.
On January 16, 2026, Petitioner filed Proofs of Service reflecting that Respondents were
served between December 19 and 30, 2025. ECF Nos. 16-20. To date, no Respondent has
responded to the Petition or otherwise shown cause why the Petition should not be granted.
Consequently, the Court will treat the Petition as uncontested and GRANT the Petition.
Additionally, and alternatively, the Court has carefully reviewed the Petition and, accepting
the facts as true, uncontested, and supported by the exhibits attached to the Petition, see ECF No.
1-1, the Court finds that relief should be granted on the merits for the reasons articulated by this
Court in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No. 2:25-cv-01113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M.
Jan. 13, 2026).
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody;3
2 The Court subsequently entered an Order granting Respondent Dedos an extension to respond to
the Petition until three days after the federal Respondents filed their response. ECF No. 13.
3 On January 27, 2026, the Court issued an Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order after Respondents failed to file a timely response. ECF No. 22. Therein, the Court ordered
Respondents to “provide Petitioner with a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge
within three (3) days, at which the government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that
continued detention is necessary[.]” Id. at 2.
On January 29, 2026, Petitioner filed a Status Report stating that on January 28, 2026, he appeared before an
Immigration Judge for a bond hearing pursuant to this Court’s Order. ECF No. 23. Apparently, the Immigration
Judge did not require Respondents to prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is necessary.
Rather, the Immigration Judge found that he lacked jurisdiction to order Petitioner released on bond “under the matter
Case 1:25-cv-01266-MIS-KRS Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. Petitioner shall not be re-detained without an individualized bond hearing before a
neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk; and
4. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
of Hurtado.” Id. at 2. The Immigration Judge’s Order states that Petitioner’s “manner of entry restricts the court of
jurisdiction to issue a bond in [his] case.” ECF No. 23-1. Thus, the Immigration Judge appears to have relied on
Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025) to conclude that the mandatory detention provisions of 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) govern the detention of noncitizens like Petitioner who have been residing in the United States
after their entry—an interpretation of the INA that has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of courts that have
considered the issue, including this one. See Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, 2:25-cv-01113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873
(D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026); Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, 2025 WL 3688155 (D.N.M. Dec.
19, 2025), report and recommendation adopted No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, ECF No. 27 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2026); see
also Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1061 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that § 1226(a)
applied to noncitizens already present in the country who were not admitted); Barco Mercado v. Francis, __ F. Supp.
3d __, 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 n.22 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting the interpretation that § 1225 requires
mandatory detention of all noncitizens living in the United States was rejected in 350 cases “decided by over 160
different judges sitting in about fifty different courts spread across the United States” and collecting cases in an
Appendix A); Ochoa Ochoa v. Noem, No. 25-cv-10865, 2025 WL 2938779, at *5 & n.8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2025)
(collecting cases). Under this Court’s view—and that of the overwhelming majority of courts to have considered the
issue—8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens who have been residing in the United States after their
entry. Because § 1226(a) is controlling, Petitioner is entitled to an individualized bond hearing as a matter of right.
Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 3485771, at *5 (D.N.M. Dec. 4, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-01266-MIS-KRS Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3