Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
HARMANJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v. 2:26-cv-00299-KG-GBW
DORA CASTRO, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Harmanjit Singh’s Motion to Alter Judgment or
Amend, Doc. 27, and the Government’s Response in Opposition, Doc. 29. The Court denies the
motion for the reasons below.
Mr. Singh, a 26-year-old citizen of India, entered the United States in 2018 without
inspection near Otay Mesa, California. Doc. 1 at 9. Mr. Singh “has established a life” and
“developed significant ties to the community.” Id. at 10. He has no criminal history. Id. On
January 12, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained Mr. Singh and initiated
removal proceedings against him. Id. at 10.
On February 20, 2026, the Court concluded that Petitioner’s detention violated the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Doc. 9
at 2. The Court ordered the Government to provide a bond hearing within seven days, where the
Government had the burden to justify Petitioner’s detention by clear and convincing evidence, or
else release him. Id. at 5.
Following that ruling, an immigration judge (“IJ”) conducted a bond hearing and denied
bond. See Doc. 11-2. Petitioner then moved to enforce the Court’s prior order, arguing that the IJ
failed to meaningfully apply the Court’s burden-shifting standard, Doc. 11, but the Court denied
that motion. Doc. 26. Petitioner now moves to amend that order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). Doc. 27 at 1. The Government opposes the motion. Doc. 29.
Case 2:26-cv-00299-KG-GBW Document 31 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The Tenth Circuit recognizes only certain grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion,
including: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” See Servants of
the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A Rule 59(e) motion “is appropriate
where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Id. “Rule
59(e) motions are not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that
could have been raised in prior briefing.” Castanon v. Cathey, 976 F.3d 1136, 1141 (10th Cir.
2020) (citation omitted). The decision to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is left to the sound
discretion of the trial court. See Minshall v. McGraw Hill Broadcasting Co., 323 F.3d 1273, 1287
(10th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner does not identify any basis for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). He does not
point to any intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error in the
Court’s prior order. Instead, the motion reasserts arguments previously raised and rejected—that
the IJ failed to apply the Court’s burden-shifting framework at the bond hearing. See generally
Doc. 27. The Court considered and rejected that contention in denying Petitioner’s motion to
enforce. See Doc. 26. A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to rehash arguments already
presented. Castanon, 976 F.3d at 1141. Because Petitioner’s motion does not meet the limited
grounds for relief under Rule 59(e), it is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its authenticity, please
refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF (Notice
of Electronic Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found on the
Court’s PACER public access system.
Case 2:26-cv-00299-KG-GBW Document 31 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 2