Singh v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
HARPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:26-CV-168
Judge Michael R. Barrett
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Harpreet Singh’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Respondents have filed
a return and response in opposition, (Doc. 10), and the parties have submitted
supplemental briefing at the Court’s invitation, (Doc. 12, 13). The petition is now ripe
for review. 1
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of India, entered the United States through Canada in
September 2024. In February 2025, the Queens County Family Court in New York
issued a guardianship for Petitioner. He subsequently filed an I-360 petition for
Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”)2 status, which was approved by United States
1 Defendant Richard Jones, Warden of the Butler County Jail, also moves to dismiss for failure to state
a claim. That motion will be denied as moot.
2 “The classification provides ‘immigration relief for foreign-born children living in the United States
who have been abused, neglected, abandoned, or similarly mistreated by a parent’ and for whom a
Case: 1:26-cv-00168-MRB-KAJ Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Citizenship and Immigration Services in July 2025. Petitioner still possesses active
SIJ status, which enables him to apply for a visa when one becomes available.
On October 10, 2025, apparently as the result of his association with an
acquaintance, Petitioner was arrested and detained by the Homeland Security Task
Force. The Court is unaware of—and Respondents have not presented any evidence
of—criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against Petitioner.
Nevertheless, he has remained in custody at the Butler County Jail since his initial
arrest.
Petitioner filed a motion in Immigration Court to terminate his removal
proceedings on October 27, 2025, which was denied. He also moved unsuccessfully on
November 11, 2025, and December 8, 2025, for custody redetermination hearing
before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Petitioner’s asylum application was eventually
denied on December 29, 2025, and the IJ ordered his removal to India; an appeal of
that decision is currently pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. (Doc. 12,
PageID 202-04).
This habeas action followed on February 17, 2026, with Petitioner arguing that
his continued detention without a custody redetermination hearing is both unlawful
and unconstitutional. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a custody
redetermination hearing since he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Respondents
counter that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
state or administrative court has determined it would not be in their best interest to be returned to
their home country or prior country of residence.” A.C.R. v. Noem, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228076, at
*4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2025).
Case: 1:26-cv-00168-MRB-KAJ Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
II. CONTROLLING LAW & ANALYSIS
Respondents concede that the Court has repeatedly rejected their novel
interpretation of § 1225(b) and held that the overly broad mandatory detention
framework being imposed violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
However, Respondents argue that “there are materially different facts here as the
Petitioner was never detained nor released by the government until his arrest and
detention on October 10, 2025.” (Doc. 10, PageID 67). The Court disagrees and finds
no factual difference necessitating a different outcome.
Even if Petitioner’s designation of parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(h) “does not
constitute a parole or admission into the United States,” as Respondents assert, (Doc.
12, PageID 206), the Court has clearly found that “detention under § 1226(a) attaches
where DHS encounters a noncitizen within the interior after admission or after a
substantial period of continuous presence, whereas § 1225(b) applies only where the
individual encountered is ‘seeking admission’ at the border or its functional
equivalent.” Ortiz Gutierrez v. Raycraft, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, No. 1:26-CV-69, 2026 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 32801, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2026) (cleaned up).
Neither the relevant caselaw, nor the applicable statutory framework, nor the
accompanying regulations “give the government the authority and mandate to detain
all noncitizens unlawfully present in the United States without bond.” Buenrostro-
Mendez v. Bondi, ___ F.4th ___, No. 25-20496, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3899, at *40
(5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (Douglas, J. dissenting). Ultimately, for the reasons stated in
Case: 1:26-cv-00168-MRB-KAJ Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
its prior opinions, the Court finds that Petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful
and unconstitutional in the absence of an individualized, constitutionally adequate
custody redetermination hearing at which the government bears the burden of
persuasion. See Azalyar v. Raycraft, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, No. 1:25-CV-916, 2026 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 3705 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2026); Garcia Gonzales v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-CV-
112, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35094 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2026); Wali v. Raycraft, No.
1:26-CV-145, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36339 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2026).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED that, on or before March 24, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. EDT,
Respondents shall either release Petitioner from custody or provide Petitioner with
a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an IJ. In the event of the latter:
(1) Respondents shall provide a copy of this order to the IJ
prior to any hearing;
(2) the IJ shall have jurisdiction over the matter and be
empowered to grant bond. See Ortiz Gutierrez, 2026 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 32801, at *5-9;
(3) Respondents shall bear the burden of persuasion of
justifying Petitioner’s continued detention and adduce
clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger
to the community. See Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133,
155 (1st Cir. 2024), reh’g en banc denied; Soto-Medina v.
Lynch, No. 1:25-CV-1704, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11113,
at *12-27 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026); and
(4) the IJ shall consider whether less restrictive
alternatives to detention can reasonably address the
government’s interest, as well as Petitioner’s “ability to
pay when setting any bond amount.” M.P.L. v. Arteta,
No. 25-CV-5307, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204541, at *20
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2025).
Case: 1:26-cv-00168-MRB-KAJ Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a status report
within one (1) business day following the above deadline to certify compliance with
the Court’s ruling. The certification shall note whether and when a bond hearing was
held, whether bond was granted or denied, and the reasons therefore.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this grant of relief, see Gall v. Scroggy,
603 F.3d 346, 352 (6th Cir. 2010), and adjudicate timely petitions filed under the
Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge
Case: 1:26-cv-00168-MRB-KAJ Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>