Singh v. Gantt et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
VISHAL SINGH, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1903-J
)
CHRIS GANTT, WARDEN CIMARRON )
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER
Petitioner Vishal Singh, an Indian citizen, entered the United States in March 2022. In
May 2022, the Department of Homeland Security placed him into removal proceedings and
released him. However, in June 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) re-detained
Petitioner. He has now filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging that detention under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and
seeking release or, in the alternative, a bond hearing. [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C).
Judge Mitchell issued a Nunc Pro Tunc Report and Recommendation recommending that the
Court: (1) grant the Petition in part and (2) order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond
hearing within ten days or otherwise release him. (Rep. & Rec.) [Doc. No. 13]. Both Petitioner
and Respondents filed timely objections, [Doc. Nos. 14-15], triggering de novo review. See Quint
v. Vail Resorts, Inc., 89 F.4th 803, 808 (10th Cir. 2023).
In relevant part, Judge Mitchell concluded that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a); therefore, his continued detention without a bond hearing violates the INA. See
Rep. & Rec. at 4-7. Petitioner does not object to the determination that § 1226(a) applies but
Case 5:26-cv-01903-J Document 16 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
argues that the proper remedy is release. [Doc. No. 14]. He also complains that Judge Mitchell
should have placed the burden on the Government at the bond hearing. See id. Respondents object
to the § 1226(a) classification but acknowledge that Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226
(10th Cir. 2026) applies. [Doc. No. 15].
In Quiroz, the Tenth Circuit held “that noncitizens who entered the United States and were
thereafter detained in the interior of the country are usually subject to § 1226(a) (and thus eligible
for bond), not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1237; see also Moreta-Mateo v. Warden,
Diamondback Corr. Facility, No. CIV-26-539-J, 2026 WL 1822994, at *2 (W.D. Okla. June 24,
2026). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing and Respondents’
failure to provide one violates the INA. Petitioner is not entitled to immediate release. See
Skrypnyk v. Gantt, No. CIV-26-808-J, 2026 WL 3027160, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 8, 2026)
(“Because § 1226(a) governs, the Court concludes the proper remedy is not immediate release, but
a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge exercising jurisdiction under § 1226(a).”).
Additionally, the Court finds that the issue of burden shifting is premature and not fit for
adjudication at this stage. See Saidi v. Lyons, No. CIV-26-738-J, 2026 WL 1333410, at *1 (W.D.
Okla. May 13, 2026) (collecting cases). Thus, the Court declines to issue an advisory opinion
instructing application of a particular burden of proof.
For the reasons above, the Nunc Pro Tunc Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13] is
ADOPTED1 and Petitioner’s Petition is GRANTED IN PART in so far as it alleges Respondents
violated the INA. The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days of the date of this Order, or release Petitioner if no
1 Judge Mitchell’s initial Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12] is deemed MOOT.
Case 5:26-cv-01903-J Document 16 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
hearing occurs within that period. Respondents shall certify compliance within ten days of the
date of this Order.
A separate judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-01903-J Document 16 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3