Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-1225-RSH-JLB
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
MANJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1225-RSH-JLB
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 2]
On February 26, 2026, petitioner Manjinder Singh filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. On March 1, 2026,
Petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 2. On March 2, 2026,
the case was transferred to the undersigned, and a briefing schedule was ordered. ECF Nos.
4, 5.
Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on
November 24, 2025, and is detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. ECF No.
1 ¶¶ 4, 21. On February 5, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing before an immigration
judge, who denied bond on the grounds that Petitioner posed a danger to the community
and a flight risk. Id. ¶ 63. Petitioner alleges that the immigration judge’s ruling was
Case 3:26-cv-01225-RSH-JLB Document 8 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-1225-RSH-JLB
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
erroneous and unsupported by the record, and misapplied the burden of proof. Id. ¶¶ 64–
67. He argues that such a ruling thereby violated his rights under the due process clause as
well as the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. ¶¶ 72, 89. Petitioner provides no records
pertaining to the bond hearing, and no declaration from any person present at the hearing.
In response, Respondents state that on March 3, 2026, Petitioner appealed the
immigration judge’s bond decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals; that appeal
remains pending. ECF No. 6 at 1; see also ECF No. 6-3 (notice of appeal). Respondents
argue that the immigration judge properly considered the evidence and correctly applied
the burden of proof; they also argue that the Petition should be denied for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Petitioner chose not to file a reply brief.
Petitioner is required to exhaust his administrative remedies through an appeal to the
BIA before seeking habeas review of the immigration judge’s adverse bond determination.
See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Here, [the petitioner]
pursued habeas review of the IJ’s adverse bond determination before appealing to the BIA.
This short cut was improper. [The petitioner] should have exhausted administrative
remedies by appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s
decision.”). Petitioner has not done so here; his recent administrative appeal, which he filed
after he filed his petition in this case, remains pending. See ECF No. 6-3. Petitioner has not
set forth any basis for waiving the exhaustion requirement in his case.
In light of Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court
DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. In light of this disposition, Petitioner’s motion
for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed
to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-01225-RSH-JLB Document 8 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2