Federal courts across the United States have ordered bond hearings or immediate release for several Indian nationals held in immigration detention, ruling that authorities either applied incorrect detention laws or failed to provide adequate due process safeguards.
The decisions were issued this week by district courts in California, Michigan, New York and Oklahoma, reflecting increased judicial scrutiny of prolonged immigration detention and the legal standards governing custody without bond. Judges in multiple cases held that continued detention without individualized assessment violated constitutional protections.
In California, a federal judge in San Diego granted a habeas corpus petition filed by Harbeet Singh and directed immigration authorities to provide an individualized bond hearing within seven days. The court observed that prolonged detention without a bond hearing had become unreasonable and amounted to a due process violation. The ruling placed the burden on the government to demonstrate, through clear and convincing evidence, that continued detention was justified on grounds of flight risk or danger to the community.
A similar outcome was recorded in Michigan, where a federal judge in the Western District conditionally granted relief to Sagar Ram. The court ordered immigration authorities to conduct a bond hearing within five business days or release him immediately. The judge rejected the government’s argument that mandatory detention provisions applied in the case.
In Oklahoma, a federal court reached the same conclusion in the matter involving Karandeep Singh. The judge held that his detention fell under Section 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits bond, rather than Section 1225(b)(2), which mandates detention. The court directed that a prompt bond hearing be conducted.
In New York, a federal judge in Brooklyn granted habeas relief to Harmanpreet Singh and ordered a new bond hearing. The court ruled that the government must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he posed a flight risk or danger. The judge found that continued detention without sufficient procedural safeguards violated the Fifth Amendment.
In another California case, a federal judge ordered the immediate release of Bhawandeep Singh Dhaliwal, directing that he be released without delay from custody of the Department of Homeland Security. The court also barred authorities from re-arresting him without constitutionally adequate process.
In a separate San Diego ruling, a federal court ordered that Singh Vikrant be released forthwith from immigration custody under the same terms and conditions as his previous release, reinforcing judicial limits on repeated detention without due process.
Not all petitions resulted in relief. In Michigan, a federal judge denied a habeas petition filed by Gurpreet Walia Singh, finding that he had already received a custody redetermination and that his detention did not violate statutory or constitutional standards. In Oklahoma, another federal court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny a petition challenging the denial of bond.
The cases largely turned on which provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act governed detention. While Section 1225 mandates detention for certain applicants for admission, Section 1226 allows for release on bond for noncitizens already present in the country. Courts have increasingly examined whether immigration authorities are applying these provisions correctly.
In recent years, federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, have recognised that noncitizens in the United States are entitled to due process protections. However, disputes persist over the duration of detention, the availability of bond hearings and which party bears the burden of proof, making the issue a continuing point of legal contention.
