Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States without inspection on January 8, 2025, near San Ysidro, California. Border patrol agents detained him, found him inadmissible, and placed him in expedited removal proceedings. After Singh expressed a fear of persecution, an asylum officer gave him a positive credible fear determination. He has been held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center ever since — more than a year — without ever receiving a bond hearing. His individual merits hearing on his asylum claim was scheduled for April 15, 2026.
Singh filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 16, 2026, arguing both that the government misapplied § 1225(b)(2) to him — contending he had already entered and was residing in the United States at the time of apprehension and should instead be detained under § 1226(a) — and that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated due process. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, in a January 27, 2026 order in case number 26-cv-0265-GPC-BLM, rejected both statutory arguments — holding that Singh, detained within fourteen days of entry and within 100 miles of the border, falls squarely within § 1225(b)(1) — but granted the petition on due process grounds.
On the due process question, the government argued that under the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, inadmissible arriving noncitizens have no due process rights other than those afforded by statute. Judge Curiel rejected that reading, aligning with the majority of district courts that have addressed the issue. The court held that while Thuraissigiam limits due process rights as to admission, it did not address prolonged detention, and an as-applied due process challenge to indefinite mandatory detention without a bond hearing remains available.
Applying the six-factor framework from Banda v. McAleenan, the court found at least four factors favored Singh. His detention of over one year, while not presumptively unreasonable, was sufficient to trigger constitutional scrutiny. The likely duration of future detention weighed in his favor given the pending merits hearing and the possibility of further appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Ninth Circuit. Conditions at Otay Mesa, which courts have previously described as indistinguishable from penal confinement, also weighed in his favor. And Singh's positive credible fear determination reduced the likelihood of a final removal order, slightly favoring him on the sixth factor. The fourth and fifth factors — delays attributable to either party — were neutral.
The court ordered the government to provide Singh with a bond hearing within seven days, at which the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence that Singh would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released. The court declined to order Singh's immediate release, finding a bond hearing before an immigration judge to be the appropriate remedy consistent with post-Jennings authority.