Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BALJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:26-cv-00541-KG-GBW
FNU LNU, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Baljinder Singh’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 9. For the reasons below, the Court
grants Mr. Singh’s habeas petition.
I. Background
Mr. Singh, an Indian citizen, has lived in the United States since at least 2023. Doc. 6 at
4. He has filed an application for asylum, which remains pending. Id. He has complied with all
immigration requirements and has no criminal history. Doc. 1 at 10. He has a social security
card and temporary work authorization. Id. Before his detention, he worked as a licensed truck
driver and operated his own business. Id. Mr. Singh has “lost” his “employment and business
income” due to his detention. Id.
Mr. Singh also suffers “from serious medical conditions, including diabetes,
hypertension,” “thyroid disorder, and heart-related conditions.” Doc. 6 at 3. He takes “multiple
prescribed medications daily.” Id. “These conditions require continuous medication and
medical monitoring, and any interruption or delay in treatment may result in severe and
irreversible harm, including stroke or heart complications.” Id. His detention has “caused
Case 1:26-cv-00541-KG-GBW Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 5

2
extreme emotional, physical, and financial distress” to his family. Doc. 1 at 10.
On January 10, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained Mr.
Singh without providing him a bond hearing. Id. He remains detained at Torrance County
Detention Facility, in Estancia, New Mexico. Id. at 1, 7. On March 16, the Court issued a
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) directing the Government to release Mr. Singh. Doc. 11.
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks “release from unlawful physical
confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas corpus review is
available if a noncitizen is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
III. Analysis
For the reasons below, the Court finds that (A) 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs Mr. Singh’s
detention, and (B) his detention violates his right to due process.
A. Section 1226 governs Mr. Singh’s detention.
The INA establishes distinct detention regimes depending on whether a noncitizen is
“seeking admission” to the United States. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288–89
(2018). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to “applicant[s] for admission” who are “seeking
admission” and “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” The “provision
mandates detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL
3187432, at *1 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.). By contrast, § 1226(a) authorizes the arrest and
detention, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General,” of noncitizens “pending a decision on
whether [they are] to be removed.” Noncitizens “detained under this second detention regime
Case 1:26-cv-00541-KG-GBW Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 5

3
are entitled to individualized bond hearings at the outset of detention.” Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL
3187432, at *1.
Consistent with the overwhelming majority of district courts to consider the issue and this
Court’s prior findings, the Court finds that § 1226 governs here. See Barco Mercado v. Francis,
2025 WL 3295903, at *13 (S.D.N.Y.) (collecting 362 district-court opinions nationwide and
noting that challengers prevailed in at least 350 of them, in decisions by over 160 judges across
fifty courts); Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432 (Gonzales, J.); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL 45288,
at *2 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.). Section 1225(a)(1) defines an “applicant for admission” as a
noncitizen “who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” In contrast,
§ 1225(b)(2)(A)’s detention mandate applies only to noncitizens “seeking admission” (emphasis
added). Noncitizens “seeking admission” are those who have not “effected an entry” into the
United States. DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). Noncitizens “who entered the
country years earlier” are not “seeking admission,” and therefore fall under § 1226 rather than
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3. The Court acknowledges the recent Fifth
Circuit decision holding that “[w]hile [noncitizens] remain applicants” for admission, “they
are...seeking admission.” Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 323330, at *5
(5th Cir.). The Tenth Circuit has not yet addressed this question.
Under this framework, § 1226 governs Mr. Singh’s detention. Mr. Singh entered the
United States years ago and was arrested in the interior. Accordingly, § 1225’s mandatory
detention provision does not apply because Mr. Singh effected an entry into the United States by
living here for years. Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3.
Case 1:26-cv-00541-KG-GBW Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 5

4
B. Mr. Singh’s detention violates his right to due process.
Courts analyze due process claims in two steps: first, whether there exists “a protected
liberty interest under the Due Process Clause,” and second, whether the procedures used to
deprive that interest “accord with the Constitution.” Domingo v. Castro, 2025 WL 2941217, at
*3 (D.N.M.). Here, Mr. Singh has a protected liberty interest. After living in the United States
for years, noncitizens acquire “a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody.”
Danierov, 2026 WL 45288, at *2. Mr. Singh’s freedom allowed “him to do a wide range of
things,” including to live at home, work, and “be with family and friends and to form the other
enduring attachments of normal life.” Id.
Mr. Singh was also entitled to procedural safeguards before he was detained. In
determining what process is due, courts consider (1) “the private interest” affected; (2) “the risk
of erroneous deprivation” through the procedures used and the probable value of additional
safeguards; and (3) “the Government’s interest,” including the fiscal and administrative burdens
of additional procedures. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). To start, Mr. Singh’s
private interest in remaining free from detention is substantial. “Freedom from
imprisonment...lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
There is also a significant risk of erroneous deprivation. Although DHS may revoke a
noncitizen’s freedom “at any time,” courts require “a material change in circumstances as to
whether the noncitizen poses a danger to the community or an unreasonable risk of flight” before
detaining them. Danierov, 2026 WL 45288, at *2. ICE detained Mr. Singh without a bond
hearing. Because no assessment was made as to whether any material facts had changed,
creating a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation of his liberty interest.
Case 1:26-cv-00541-KG-GBW Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Finally, the Government’s interest in detaining Mr. Singh’s without a hearing is limited,
and the burden of providing a bond hearing is minimal. While the Government does have a
legitimate interest in ensuring that noncitizens attend immigration proceedings, detention is
unnecessary to achieve that goal in this case. Moreover, the “cost of providing a bond
determination is not terribly burdensome.” See Danierov, 2026 WL 45288, at *2.
IV. Conclusion
The Court grants Mr. Singh’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1. Because the
Court already directed the Government to direct Mr. Singh, it now enjoins the Government from
re-detaining him unless it provides an individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge
under § 1226(a).
The Government shall file a status report within ten business days of this Order
confirming that it has provided him with a bond hearing or, alternatively, that he remains at
liberty.
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 1:26-cv-00541-KG-GBW Document 13 Filed 03/26/26 Page 5 of 5