US: A bail hearing for an Indian person detained by ICE is ordered by a judge

US: An Indian person who was arrested in the United States and is not a fresh border arrival is entitled to judicial review of his imprisonment, according to a US federal judge that ordered immigration officials to provide him a bail hearing.

Lovedeep Singh, a 26-year-old Indian national who has been detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center while his immigration appeal is still pending, filed a habeas corpus petition, and US Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown of the Western District of Pennsylvania granted it in a thorough memorandum opinion on January 9.

The court ordered authorities to offer Singh a hearing before an impartial immigration judge by January 16, 2026, saying, “The Court finds that, because Singh’s detention is governed by § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2), the Government must afford him a bond hearing.”

Those who arrive at the US border and request entrance are subject to Section 1225(b)(2). The statute mandates automatic detention during removal proceedings if immigration agents determine that the individual is not manifestly entitled to enter. This portion does not include a bail hearing. It is mostly used by newcomers rather than US residents.

However, while removal procedures are ongoing, immigration officials may detain or release the individual in accordance with Section 1226(a). The individual is entitled to an immigration judge’s bail hearing. Bond or other requirements may be used to grant release.

A disagreement about whether part of US immigration law applies to Singh’s imprisonment was at the center of the case. The government claimed that he was subject to obligatory detention under a clause that prohibits bail hearings and applies to applicants for admission to the United States. Singh argued that the legislation only applies to those who are coming to the border and that a court should have the authority to examine his detention since he has been a resident of the US for many years.

Singh was upheld by the court. Judge Brown said that noncitizens who are already residing in the United States are not covered by the obligatory detention legislation, but rather those who are “seeking admission” at a port of entry. The court pointed out that Singh was not trying to enter the US when he was arrested and had been physically present in the nation for over six years.

According to the document, Singh crossed the southwest border into the United States in April 2019 and was subsequently freed after posting a $24,000 bail. He requested protection under the Convention Against Torture, withholding of deportation, and asylum. In July 2022, an immigration court ordered his removal to India after rejecting their petitions. Singh automatically halted his deportation while the appeal was underway when he appealed the judgment to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

After going to an FBI office in July 2025 to request protection for his fiancée, who he said was getting threatening communications, Singh was placed under arrest once again. Immigration officers were notified by federal officials, who conducted an interview with Singh, revoked his release, and detained him while his appeal was being processed.

The government cited a 2025 policy change that regards certain noncitizens currently residing in the US as “applicants for admission” as justification for Singh’s continued detention without a bail hearing. The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently agreed with that interpretation.

Judge Brown disapproved of the strategy. He said that treating long-term US citizens as new immigrants is not supported by the statute’s plain text. The court also referenced a Supreme Court ruling that made a significant legal difference between those at the border and those who were already in the nation.

The court pointed out that detention is optional and subject to an immigration judge’s assessment under a different clause in US immigration law for those who are already in the US. Detainees may request release on bail while their proceedings proceed under that clause.

The court did not compel Singh’s immediate release or prevent the government from moving him to another detention facility, but it did award him the opportunity to a bail hearing. The court declared that a bail hearing was the sole remedy permitted by law.