Singh v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HARSHDEEP SINGH, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-268-G
)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of )
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, )
et al., )
)
Respondents.1 )
ORDER
Petitioner Harshdeep Singh filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition,”
Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging Petitioner’s detention by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Certain Respondents have filed an Answer (Doc.
No. 11), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Doc. No. 14).
I. Background
The factual background is set forth in the Petition and not contested by Respondents.
As relevant here, Petitioner is a “citizen of India who entered [the] United States on March
12, 2023.” Pet. ¶¶ 1, 23-24. He was subsequently “taken into custody and issued a Notice
1 Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Todd Blanche,
United States Attorney General, David J. Venturella, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and Chris Gantt, Warden of Cimarron Correctional
Facility, are hereby substituted as respondents for Kristi Noem, Pamela Bondi, Todd
Lyons, and Scarlet Grant, respectively, pursuant to Rules 25(d) and 81(a)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The appearing respondents are: Secretary Mullin; Attorney
General Blanche; Acting Director Venturella; Joshua Johnson, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, Dallas Field Office, ICE; and Daren Margolin,
Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review.
Case 5:26-cv-00268-G Document 16 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 5

2
to Appear and released on an order of release on recognizance” on March 17, 2023. Id. ¶
24. “ICE charged Petitioner in Immigration Court as being inadmissible” pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) due to Petitioner’s entry into the United States “without
inspection.” Id. ¶ 25.
On October 24, 2025, ICE detained Petitioner “in Oklahoma,” and Petitioner is now
housed at Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma. Id. ¶ 3.
After detaining Petitioner, “[n]o custody redetermination hearing was provided,”
and bond was not set. Id. ¶¶ 4, 16. Petitioner states that he “did not apply for a bond”
because “all immigration judges are subject to” In re Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216
(B.I.A. 2025), in which the Board of Immigration Appeals held that, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A), “those who entered the country without admission or parole are ineligible
for a bond hearing.” Pet. ¶¶ 6, 16, 30-31.2
II. Discussion
A. Petitioner’s Claims and Respondents’ Answer
Petitioner argues that Respondents’ detention of him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2)(A) “unlawfully mandates [his] continued detention and violates” the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., and the due process
rights afforded him by the Fifth Amendment. See Pet. ¶¶ 34-36, 38-46. Petitioner seeks
2 In re Yajure Hurtado is not binding on this Court. Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,
603 U.S. 369, 413 (2024) (“Courts need not and under the [Administrative Procedure Act]
may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is
ambiguous.”).
Case 5:26-cv-00268-G Document 16 Filed 08/21/26 Page 2 of 5

3
habeas relief in the form of an order of release from detention or, alternatively, provision
of a bond hearing. Id. at 11.
Invoking multiple statutory interpretation arguments that have been previously
detailed by this Court and others, Respondents argue that “[t]he plain language of §
1225(b)(2)(A) straightforwardly applies” to Petitioner. Answer at 21-30; see also Munoz
v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1190-G, 2026 WL 2200433, at *2-3 (W.D. Okla. July 30, 2026);
Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1235, 1240 (10th Cir. 2026).
B. The Inapplicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)
Following the submission of the Answer and Reply, the Tenth Circuit held that §
1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement “applies only to [noncitizens] seeking
admission” at the border of the United States. Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1239-40. The
Tenth Circuit further held “that noncitizens who entered the United States and were
thereafter detained in the interior of the country are,” instead, “usually subject to § 1226(a)
(and thus eligible for bond).” Id. at 1237; see also id. at 1232, 1251 (concluding that the
petitioner, who was detained at a traffic stop in the interior of the country, was “eligible for
release” and “entitled to a bond hearing”).
Respondents’ position is foreclosed by Santillan Quiroz. Here, as in Santillan
Quiroz, Petitioner was taken into custody in the interior of the United States after having
entered the country. See Pet. ¶¶ 1, 3; Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1233-34. And as in
Santillan Quiroz, Petitioner has been held in detention without a bond hearing or other
“opportunity to argue for release.” Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1233-34; see Pet. ¶¶ 4,
16, 30-31. Accordingly, § 1225(b)(2)(A) is inapplicable. See Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th
Case 5:26-cv-00268-G Document 16 Filed 08/21/26 Page 3 of 5

4
at 1246-51. Because Petitioner “can properly be subject to detention under § 1226(a),” he
is entitled to a bond hearing. Id. at 1251 n.13. Given this determination, the Court need
not address Petitioner’s remaining claims for relief. See Ramos Perez v. Grant, No. CIV-
26-721-D, 2026 WL 2033144, at *2 & n.2 (W.D. Okla. July 14, 2026).3
C. Petitioner’s Request for Fees and Costs
Petitioner also requests attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”). See Pet. at 11.
The EAJA “unambiguously authorize[s] fees in habeas actions challenging
immigration detention.” Daley v. Ceja, 158 F.4th 1152, 1166 (10th Cir. 2025), petition for
cert. filed, No. 26-146 (U.S. July 30, 2026). Such attorney’s fees must be sought pursuant
to the EAJA and by separate motion, however. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2), 81(a)(4);
LCvR 54.2. Any recovery of costs is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(a), Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), and Local Civil Rule 54.1.
3 Respondents also argue that Petitioner’s INA violation claim “challenges [the Department
of Homeland Security’s] decision to detain Petitioner under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and therefore
runs headlong into the INA’s jurisdiction channeling and stripping provisions, depriving
this Court of jurisdiction.” Answer at 17-20 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(e), 1252(b)(9), (g)).
Petitioner responds that Respondents are “incorrect” because he challenges only “the
legality of his current detention and the statutory authority under which that detention is
imposed.” See Pet’r’s Reply at 3-4. Because Petitioner claims Respondents “violate[d]
the INA” by “unlawfully” detaining him pursuant to § 1225(b)(2), Pet. ¶¶ 34-36, Petitioner
“challenges one of the many . . . decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation
process” “to which § 1252(g) is inapplicable.” Munoz, 2026 WL 2200433, at *2 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (concluding that the relevant statutes do not deprive the Court of
jurisdiction to consider a habeas claim for violation of the INA based upon the detention
of a noncitizen); see Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482
(1999); Mukantagara v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 67 F.4th 1113, 1116 (10th Cir.
2023).
Case 5:26-cv-00268-G Document 16 Filed 08/21/26 Page 4 of 5

5
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the above, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1)
is GRANTED as to Petitioner’s claim for relief based upon a violation of the INA.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Respondents are ORDERED to, within seven (7) days of the date of this Order,
either provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or
release Petitioner into the United States.
2. Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED as moot;
3. Petitioner’s remaining claim for relief is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
4. Respondents shall file a declaration with the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746
within ten (10) days of the date of this Order affirming either that a bond hearing
was conducted or that Petitioner was released from detention into the United
States.
5. The Court will separately enter judgment but retains jurisdiction over this matter
to ensure compliance with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of August, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00268-G Document 16 Filed 08/21/26 Page 5 of 5