Chestnut

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 Case No. 1:26-cv-03368-JLT-EGC

GURDIT SINGH (A No. 226-136-633),

12 ORDER WITHDRAWING THE REFERENCE

Petitioner, OF THIS MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE

13 JUDGE; GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT

v. OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND DIRECTING

14 RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE A

CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., SUBSTANTIVE BOND HEARING

15

Respondents. (Doc. 1)

16

17 Gurdit Singh (also known as Gordit dit Singh) is a federal immigration detainee

18 proceeding with a pending habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) This matter

19 was initially referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

20 and Local Rule 302. In the interest of justice and to promote judicial and party efficiency, the

21 undersigned hereby withdraws that reference, and for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS the

22 Petition.

23 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

24 Petitioner is from India. He entered the United States on September 16, 2024 where hewas

25 encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers and was issued a Notice to Appear,

26 Form I-862, charging him pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality

27 Act. (Doc. 1 at 11; Doc. 1-2 at 8; Doc. 5-1 at 2.) Petitioner was released from custody on his own

28 recognizance. (Doc. 1-2 at 12.) On October 21, 2024, Petitioner was enrolled into the Alternatives

1 to Detention program. (Doc. 5-1 at 2.) While on ATD, Petitioner incurred multiple violations,

2 including ten missed biometric check-ins and three missed home visits during the period of

3 November 20, 2024, and July 16, 2025. (Doc. 5-4 at 1.) Petitioner timely filed an asylum

4 application (Form I-589) on or around December 24, 2024, and appeared in all hearings. (Id. at

5 15-26.) Petitioner also filed I-360 Petition (Special Immigrant Juvenile), which has been

6 approved. (Doc. 1 at 11; Doc. 5-1 at 2.)

7 On October 30, 2025, Petitioner was detained by ICE officers in Fresno, California,

8 during a routine check-in and is currently in custody at the California City Detention Facility in

9 California City, California. (Doc. 1 at 12; Doc. 5-1 at 2.) On May 6, 2026, an immigration judge

10 ordered Petitioner removed to India. (Doc. 5-2.) On May 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a timely appeal

11 of the immigration judge’s order with the Board of Immigration Appeals. (Doc. 5-3.) As

12 Petitioner filed a timely appeal, his order of removal is not final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B).

13 On May 1, 2026, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his due process rights have been violated. (See

15 generally, Doc. 1.) On June 5, 2026, Respondents filed a response to the Petition on the grounds

16 that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set forth at 8

17 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (See generally, Doc. 5.)

18 II. LEGAL STANDARD

19 The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every

20 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)

21 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the

22 power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or

23 laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens

24 in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. R.

25 P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).

26 III. DISCUSSION

27 Petitioner claims that his ongoing detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing

28 before a neutral decisionmaker violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

1 Amendment. (See generally, Doc. 1.) To the extent that Respondents substantively address

2 Petitioner’s due process argument, they assert that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission”

3 subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 of the INA and therefore categorically

4 ineligible for a bond hearing. (See generally, Doc. 5.)

5 Courts nationwide, including this one, have rejected Respondents’ new legal position and

6 found the DHS policy unlawful. See e.g., Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO,

7 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. Chestnut, 1:25-CV-01228-JLT, 2025

8 WL 2879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT-SKO, 2025

9 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB,

10 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); J.E.H.G. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01673-JLT-

11 SKO, 2025 WL 3523108 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-

12 CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-

13 JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026).

14 Respondents offer little to rebut Petitioner’s due process claim and do not provide any

15 justification for detaining Petitioner. Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Court’s prior orders,

16 the Court finds that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due

17 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

18 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

19 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED;

20 2. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, unless Petitioner consents to a

21 later date, Respondent SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an

22 immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d

23 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and where “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence

24 that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond,” Id. at

25 1203. In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so

26 great a flight risk as to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge should consider

27 Petitioner’s financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions,

28 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017). If Respondents fail to provide a timely bond hearing in

1 | accordance with this order, Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner;

2 3. At least 72 hours before the scheduled hearing, the Petitioner SHALL receive

3 | notice of the hearing. He SHALL have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing, and

4 | he SHALL be entitled to appear at the hearing. If his counsel has filed an appearance in the

5 | immigration proceedings, at least 72 hours before the hearing, counsel SHALL receive notice of

6 || the scheduled hearing;

7 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for Petitioner.

8

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: _ June 12, 2026 Cerin | Tower

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28