Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26cv0370 DMS DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAGROOP KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
Daniel A. BRIGHTMAN, Field Office
Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, ERO San Diego Field Office,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Kristi NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; TODD M.
LYONS, Acting Director of the United
States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; PAMELA BONDI, U.S.
Attorney General; EXECUTIVEOFFICE
FOR IMMIGRATIONREVIEW;
JEREMY CASEY, Warden, Imperial
Regional Detention Facility,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv0370 DMS DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Respondents filed a Return to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a Traverse.
Petitioner is a citizen and national of India. (Pet. at 4.) On July 6, 2024, she entered
Case 3:26-cv-00370-DMS-DDL Document 12 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
26cv0370 DMS DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the United States and was encountered by U.S. Border Patrol. (Id.) She was processed
and released the same day with a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge on
December 13, 2024. (Pet., Ex. 1.)
On December 27, 2025, Petitioner was re-detained at an Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) checkpoint in Yuma, Arizona. (Pet. at 5.) She is currently detained
at Imperial Regional Detention Facility. (Id.)
On January 21, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case seeking release from custody,
or in the alternative, a bond hearing. She alleges her detention violates the Immigration
and Nationality Act, the Due Process Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Equal
Protection Clause, and the Suspension Clause. Respondents do not address Petitioner’s
claims, but instead argue Petitioner is lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and is
therefore entitled to a bond hearing.
In Rodriguez Fernandez v. Noem, Case No. 25cv3399 DMS KSC, this Court
addressed a set of facts and claims similar to those presented here. Rodriguez Fernandez,
ECF No. 8. Specifically, the petitioner there (1) entered the United States via an
appointment with the CBP One mobile application, (2) was paroled into the United States,
and (3) was later re-detained after appearing at a hearing in immigration court. Id. at 1-2.
The Court agreed with the petitioner that his re-detention without notice or an opportunity
to be heard was a violation of his due process rights, and ordered that he be released.
Here, Petitioner did not enter the United States through a CBP One appointment, but
like the petitioner in Rodriguez Fernandez, she was released after being processed by
border patrol officials and subsequently detained by ICE agents, albeit at an ICE
checkpoint rather than in immigration court. Given the factual similarity between the
cases, the reasoning of Fernandez Rodriguez applies equally here, and leads to the same
conclusion.
Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted. Respondents shall
release Petitioner from custody within 48 hours of this Order’s filing. Respondents shall
not re-detain Petitioner without first providing a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral
Case 3:26-cv-00370-DMS-DDL Document 12 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
26cv0370 DMS DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
decisionmaker at which Respondents must prove there are material, changed circumstances
related to flight risk or danger to the community that warrant Petitioner’s re-detention. The
parties shall file a Joint Status Report within 72 hours of this Order’s filing, confirming
Petitioner has been released.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00370-DMS-DDL Document 12 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3