Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SUPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00154-MIS-LF
RAY CARNES, in his official capacity as
Warden of the Torrance County Detention
Facility; WILLIAM SHAW, in his official
capacity as Assistant Field Office Director,
Albuquerque Field Office, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; TODD M. LYONS,
in his official capacity as Acting Director of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as
Attorney 	General 	of 	the 	United 	States;
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Supreet Singh’s Amended Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 2, filed January 26, 2026. Respondents William
Shaw, Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, and Pamela Bondi (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a Response
on February 5, 2026, ECF No. 7.
1 	Respondent Ray Carnes, Warden of the Torrance County Detention Center, did not file a response
or otherwise appear in this case. It has become standard practice in these habeas cases for the warden of the relevant
detention center to either appear and adopt the federal respondents’ arguments, see, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, Notice of Joinder In USA Respondents’ Forthcoming Claims and Defenses, ECF
No. 11 (D.N.M. Dec. 3, 2025), or not appear at all, see Francisco v. Dedos, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF,
Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition at 8, ECF No. 53 (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026).
Case 1:26-cv-00154-MIS-LF Document 9 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Counsel for Respondents acknowledges the facts of this case are “substantially similar” to
Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 74195 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2026). Resp. at
2, ECF No. 7. Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases involving the detention of
noncitizens already present in the United States—as opposed to noncitizens detained at a border
crossing or port of entry—but argued that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking
admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 1-2.
Ultimately, the Court finds that the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from
prior cases the Undersigned Judge has decided involving habeas petitioners who were detained
within the United States, rather than at a border crossing or port of entry, and adopts the findings
contained in its Order Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons,
Case No. 2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court
finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a
bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to
habeas relief. The Court further finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in
Petitioner’s continued detention and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp.,
ECF No. 7. The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-
deprivation 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. Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order and to
entertain any motions for attorneys’ fees.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Supreet Singh’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No.
2, is GRANTED;
Case 1:26-cv-00154-MIS-LF Document 9 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention;
3. 	Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation 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 to ensure compliance with this Order and to entertain
any motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00154-MIS-LF Document 9 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3