Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-913-CAB-BJW
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
SODHI SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-913-CAB-BJW
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Petitioner Sodhi Singh’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	[Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] 	Petitioner claims he is being
detained by immigration authorities in violation of the Fifth Amendment. [Id. at 10–13.]
He 	seeks 	immediate 	release 	or, 	at 	minimum, 	a 	bond 	hearing 	before 	a 	neutral
decisionmaker. [Id. at 14.] For the reasons below, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the
request for a writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS that Petitioner receive an individualized
bond hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an Indian citizen who entered the United States without inspection near
San Ysidro, California on December 13, 2024. 	[Id. at 6.] 	He was determined to be an
inadmissible arriving alien, taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
custody, and placed into expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). [Id. at
Case 3:26-cv-00913-CAB-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
3:26-cv-913-CAB-BJW
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
6; Doc. No. 4 at 1–2.] 	He was given a credible fear interview and received a positive
credible fear determination. [Petition at 6.] He was then issued a Notice to Appear before
an immigration judge (“IJ”) on February 20, 2025. [Id.] Following several master calendar
hearings and continuances due to Petitioner and to Respondents, the IJ denied Petitioner’s
asylum claim on October 24, 2025. [Doc. No. 4 at 2.] Petitioner has appealed that denial
to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which remains pending. [Id.]
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
a. Jurisdiction
Respondents challenge this Court’s jurisdiction based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). [Doc.
No. 4 at 3–4.] 	This Court and innumerable others have repeatedly rejected the same
jurisdictional argument under similar factual scenarios. Because Petitioner challenges the
legality of his detention and not the decision to commence removal proceedings, the
adjudication of his removal case, or any action to execute a removal order, the Court rejects
Respondents’ jurisdictional arguments by adopting and incorporating by reference the
same reasoning expressed in Chavez v. Noem, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1138–39 (S.D. Cal.
2025).
b. Due Process Claim
Petitioner argues that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing—nearly fifteen
months—violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. [Petition at 6.] Respondents
counter that the relevant statutory language of § 1225(b)(1) and Supreme Court precedent
require Petitioner’s detention until his removal proceedings are resolved. 	[Doc. No. 4 at
Case 3:26-cv-00913-CAB-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
3:26-cv-913-CAB-BJW
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
4–9.] Respondents cite to Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S.
103, 138–40 (2020) to argue that Petitioner has no due process rights beyond those afforded
by statute. 	[Doc. No. 4 at 6.] 	The Court has previously discussed that while Supreme
Court precedent does establish that the statutory language of § 1225(b) mandates detention,
the Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional question of whether indefinite
detention is permitted. 	L.R.G. v. LaRose, 3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13 at 5–6
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026). And as the Court recently held in L.R.G.—faced with the same
arguments by Respondents—a due process violation may occur when § 1225(b)(1) results
in practically indefinite civil detention. Id. at *6.
Though there is no brightline test for a violation, this Court and many others have
used the Banda test which considers the following six factors to determine when detention
under § 1225(b)(1) violates due process: (1) the total length of detention to date, which is
the most important factor; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) the conditions of
detention; (4) delays in removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in removal
proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings
will result in a final order of removal. 	Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1106
(W.D. Wash. 2019).
The first factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor given that he has been detained for nearly
fifteen months. See Sibomana v. LaRose, No. 22-CV-933-LL-NLS, 2023 WL 3028093, at
*4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2023) (finding that courts are typically wary of continued custody
without a bond hearing when detention extends beyond one year). Regarding the second
Banda factor, which consists of the “anticipated duration of all removal proceedings—
including administrative and judicial appeals[,]” 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1119, Petitioner has a
pending BIA appeal and it is likely that his appeals process will take at least several months.
[See Petition at 13.] Accordingly, the second factor favors Petitioner. As to the third Banda
factor, Petitioner’s confinement is similar to penal confinement because, as the Court
explained with respect to the petitioner in L.R.G. v. LaRose, who was also detained at Otay
Mesa Detention Center, Petitioner is detained “in a secure facility, guarded by armed
Case 3:26-cv-00913-CAB-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
3:26-cv-913-CAB-BJW
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
personnel, and has restricted access to outdoor space, activities, and communication.” No.
3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13, at *8 (S.D. Cal. January 16, 2026).
As to the fourth and fifth factors, Petitioner states that the government caused the
majority of the delays, [Petition at 12], while Respondents offer a blanket denial of
responsibility for the delays, [Doc. No. 4 at 8]. 	Petitioner states that it was difficult to
consult with counsel due to his detention and that the IJ reset Petitioner’s hearing due to
backlog. 	[Petition at 12; Doc. No. 4 at 3–4.]. 	Given the circumstances of Petitioner’s
delays—to obtain counsel and prepare his arguments—and the fact there is no evidence
that Petitioner deliberately sought to delay the proceedings to obtain a bond hearing, the
fourth and fifth factors weigh slightly in Petitioner’s favor. 	See Bayani v. LaRose, 3:26-
CV-266-JES-VET, 2026 WL 194748, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2026) (“[A] petitioner’s
pursuit of defenses to removal should not be held against a determination that they are
entitled to due process.”). Finally, the Court finds the sixth factor neutral as it is unclear
what the result of Petitioner’s removal proceedings will be.
In sum, factors one (the most important), two, three, four, and five weigh for
Petitioner, while factor six is neutral. The Court thus concludes that Petitioner’s continued
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1) without a bond hearing violates his right to due
process. 	Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing before an
immigration court, at which Respondents must justify his continued detention by a showing
of clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the
community 	if 	released. 	See Singh 	v. 	Holder, 	638 	F.3d 	1196, 	1203 	(9th 	Cir.
2011), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (“Given
the substantial liberty interest at stake . . . we hold that the government must prove by clear
and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify
denial of bond[.]”)
///
///
///
Case 3:26-cv-00913-CAB-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
3:26-cv-913-CAB-BJW
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioner’s prolonged detention without
a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 	The Court
therefore PARTIALLY GRANTS the writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS Respondents
to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing by March 18, 2026. 	Respondents
shall update the Court on the result of the bond hearing by March 20, 2026. The Petition
is otherwise DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00913-CAB-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5