Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANMOL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00650-KG-KRS
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Anmol Singh’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 6. Petitioner proceeds pro se. Doc. 1 at 1. For
the reasons below, the Court denies the petition.
I. Background
Petitioner, a 22-year-old native and citizen of India, entered the United States without
inspection or admission on October 14, 2024. Doc. 6 at 2. United States Customs and Border
Patrol (“CBP”) arrested Petitioner and released him on his own recognizance soon after. Id.
Petitioner resided in New York and complied with all conditions of release. Doc. 1 at 6.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Petitioner into custody in New
York on December 2, 2025. Doc. 1 at 6. ICE transferred him to the Otero County Processing
Center in New Mexico on December 10, 2025. Id. He remains detained there. Id. He applied
for and received a bond hearing on February 26, 2026. Id. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied
Petitioner’s bond request “as a matter of discretion” because Petitioner failed to “meet his burden
of showing that he is not a flight risk.” Doc. 6-5 at 1. Petitioner appealed that decision to the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on March 25, 2026. See Doc. 7 at 71. Petitioner
Case 2:26-cv-00650-KG-KRS Document 10 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
challenges his detention and bond denial, arguing that he is “not a danger and have no criminal
history.” Doc. 1 at 7. Petitioner also filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on
March 30, 2026, seeking immediate release during the pendency of these proceedings. See Doc.
7.
In its response, the Government urges the Court to deny the Petition on two grounds: that
28 U.S.C. § 1225 governs Petitioner’s detention and he is not entitled to a bond hearing, or, in
the event that the Court determines Petitioner’s detention is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1226, that
Petitioner has “already received a custody redetermination hearing” that satisfies the statute.
Doc. 6 at 2.
II. Legal Standard
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); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“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
Case 2:26-cv-00650-KG-KRS Document 10 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
second detention regime are “entitled to individualized bond hearings at the outset of detention.”
Velasquez Salazar, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1239 (D.N.M. 2025).
III. Analysis
As an initial matter, § 1226 governs Petitioner’s detention. Petitioner has lived in the
United States for more than one year and resided in New York City where he worked at a gas
station. See Doc. 7 at 46. He therefore was not seeking admission at the time of his arrest.
The Court nonetheless declines to grant relief because Petitioner received a bond hearing
on February 26, 2026. At that hearing, the IJ considered the record and found that Petitioner
failed to carry his burden of showing he is not a flight risk and as a matter of discretion. Doc. 6-
5 at 1. That is all § 1226 requires. To the extent Petitioner challenges the IJ’s discretionary
denial of bond, that challenge is properly directed to the BIA.
IV. Conclusion
The Court denies the Petition, Doc. 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, Doc. 7, is denied as moot.
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-00650-KG-KRS Document 10 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 3