Gurpinder Singh, a citizen of India, has been detained since entering the United States without inspection on August 14, 2024. Singh expressed fear of returning to India and passed a credible fear interview, leading to his placement in standard removal proceedings rather than expedited removal. His asylum case has been plagued by administrative delays, including multiple judge reassignments and his case being mysteriously taken off calendar, with his next hearing not scheduled until June 2026.
Judge Cowan applied the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge and found Singh's prolonged detention violated due process. 'Petitioner has been continuously detained since he entered the country on August 14, 2024, and is no longer in expedited removal proceedings because he expressed credible fear of return to his home country,' Cowan wrote. The court rejected the government's argument that Singh was responsible for delays, noting that aside from one continuance request due to natural disasters affecting his ability to gather documentation and one missed deadline the BIA found excusable, the remaining delays were due to administrative processes.
The government had argued Singh was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1225(b)(1) as an 'arriving alien' and therefore not entitled to a bond hearing. However, Singh's notice to appear identified him as 'an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled,' not as an 'arriving alien.' Judge Cowan declined to resolve which statute applies, finding that even under mandatory detention provisions, Singh's prolonged confinement violates constitutional due process rights.
At the ordered bond hearing, immigration officials must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Singh poses a flight risk or danger to the community, or he must be released. The case highlights the growing backlog in immigration courts, with over 3.3 million active cases nationwide and asylum seekers waiting an average of over 1,200 days for resolution. Singh's victory adds to a growing body of district court decisions finding that indefinite detention without bond hearings violates due process, even for those subject to mandatory detention statutes.