Singh v. Brightman et al

1
3:26-cv-0581-CAB-AHG
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
VIKRAMJEET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
DANIEL A. BRIGHTMAN, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-0581-CAB-AHG
ORDER:
(1) PARTIALLY GRANTING
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS; and
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AS MOOT [Doc. No. 2]
Petitioner Vikramjeet Singh (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], and a motion for temporary
restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. 	For the reasons discussed below, the Court
ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody under the same
conditions which existed immediately prior to Petitioner’s detention.
Petitioner claims that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) improperly
re-detained him on July 22, 2025 without notice, during an ICE check-in. [Petition at 6.]
He was previously detained on or around September 14, 2024, when he entered the United
States and was subsequently released. [Id. at 5–6.] He claims that he is being unlawfully
Case 3:26-cv-00581-CAB-AHG Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-0581-CAB-AHG
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
detained in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the Suspension Clause. [Id. at 12–22.] He seeks
immediate release from custody, or at minimum, a bond hearing. [Id. at 22–23.]
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an Indian national who entered the United States on or about September
14, 2024, was apprehended and placed into removal proceedings, and then released. [Id.
at 5.] 	On July 22, 2025, Respondents re-detained Petitioner at his regular ICE check-in
without providing “any written notice explaining the basis for the revocation of his earlier
release.” 	[Id. at 6.] 	On December 3, 2025, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner
removed and denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 	[Id.]
Petitioner’s appeal of the IJ’s decision is currently pending. [Id.]
Respondents do not contest any of Petitioner’s asserted facts. [See generally Doc.
No. 5.] Instead, Respondents assert that Petitioner is “entitled to an order from this Court
directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” [Id. at 2.]
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that he has a protected liberty interest in his prior release, which
Respondents violated when they re-detained him on July 22, 2025. 	[Doc. No. 2-1 at 17;
Petition at 6.] Respondents do not address this argument at all.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be
“deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of
Case 3:26-cv-00581-CAB-AHG Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-0581-CAB-AHG
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
physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This protection applies to noncitizens as it does to U.S. citizens.
See Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (“[E]ven aliens shall not . . . be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”). Moreover, noncitizens
seeking asylum are guaranteed due process under the Fifth Amendment throughout the
asylum process. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993).
“Courts have previously found that individuals released from immigration custody
on bond have a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody[.]” Valencia Zapata
v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07492-RFL, 2025 WL 2578207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025)
(listing cases). Indeed, “the government’s decision to release an individual from custody
creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be
revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” 	Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F.
Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2025) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)).
In Noori v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-1824-GPC-MSB, 2025 WL 2800149 (S.D. Cal. Oct.
1, 2025), the government violated a noncitizen parolee’s Fifth Amendment due process
rights when the government revoked his parole by sending a mass electronic notification
one morning and arresting him later that day at his immigration hearing. Id. at *2, 11. The
Noori court thus held that he had a “protectable expectation of his due process rights in his
removal proceedings . . . and was entitled to both notification of revocation and the
reasoning 	for 	revocation, 	if 	not 	also 	an 	opportunity 	to 	be 	heard 	and 	contest 	the
determination.” Id. at *11.
Here, Petitioner received even less due process than the Noori petitioner. Petitioner
received no notification or individualized reason as to why his release was being revoked
before he was summarily detained on July 22, 2025. 	Nor have Respondents explained,
even after the fact, what circumstances have changed to warrant Petitioner’s re-detention.
And though Respondents now claim he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a), they do not explain how Petitioner was lawfully detained in the first place.
Case 3:26-cv-00581-CAB-AHG Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-0581-CAB-AHG
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
Giving Petitioner a bond hearing now would not remedy the Fifth Amendment violation
he has already experienced. Only release from detention can accomplish that now.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody under
the same conditions which existed immediately prior to Petitioner’s re-detention on July
22, 2025. The motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00581-CAB-AHG Document 7 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4