US Courts Order Bond Hearings for Indian Nationals in Immigration Detention

Federal courts in California, Michigan, New York, and Oklahoma have ordered bond hearings or immediate release for several Indian nationals held in immigration detention. Judges ruled that authorities either applied the wrong detention law or failed to provide adequate due process, requiring the government to prove detainees are a flight risk or danger. The cases center on whether detention falls under mandatory or discretionary sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. While several detainees won relief, courts denied petitions in other cases where due process was deemed satisfied.

Key Points: US Courts Grant Bond Relief to Indians in Immigration Detention

  • Courts order bond hearings in multiple states
  • Judges cite wrong law application by authorities
  • Government must prove detainee is a risk
  • Rulings hinge on specific detention statutes
3 min read

US courts grant bond relief to Indians held in immigration detention

Federal courts order bond hearings or release for Indian nationals held in US immigration detention, citing due process violations.

"prolonged detention without a bond hearing has become unreasonable and violates due process - Federal Judge"

Washington, Feb 27

Federal courts across the United States this week have ordered bond hearings or immediate release for several Indian nationals held in immigration detention.

The rulings came from district courts in California, Michigan, New York and Oklahoma. Judges said immigration authorities either applied the wrong detention law or failed to provide adequate due process.

In California, a federal judge in San Diego granted a habeas petition filed by Harbeet Singh. The court ordered an "individualised bond hearing" within seven days.

The judge wrote that prolonged detention without a bond hearing "has become unreasonable and violates due process". The government must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is a flight risk or danger to the community.

In Michigan, a federal judge in the Western District conditionally granted relief to Sagar Ram. The court ordered a bond hearing under section 1226(a) within five business days or immediate release. The judge rejected the government's claim that mandatory detention applied.

In Oklahoma, a federal court reached a similar conclusion in the case of Karandeep Singh. The judge held that his detention is governed by section 1226(a), which allows bond, not by the mandatory detention provision in section 1225(b)(2). The court ordered a prompt bond hearing.

In New York, a federal judge in Brooklyn granted habeas relief to Harmanpreet Singh. The court ordered a new bond hearing. The government must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is a flight risk or danger. The judge said continued detention without proper safeguards violated the Fifth Amendment.

In another California case, a federal judge ordered the immediate release of Bhawandeep Singh Dhaliwal. The court said he "SHALL be released IMMEDIATELY from DHS custody." The judge also barred authorities from re-arresting him without constitutionally adequate process.

In a separate San Diego case, the court ordered that Singh Vikrant "be released forthwith from immigration custody under the same terms and conditions as his previous release".

Not all detainees won relief.

In Michigan, a federal judge denied a habeas petition filed by Gurpreet Walia Singh. The court found that he had already received a redetermination of custody. The judge ruled that his detention did not violate the law or the Constitution.

In Oklahoma, another federal court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied a petition challenging the denial of bond.

The cases centre on which section of the Immigration and Nationality Act applies. Section 1225 requires mandatory detention for certain applicants for admission. Section 1226 allows the release of noncitizens already in the country on bond.

Federal courts in recent years have closely examined prolonged immigration detention. The Supreme Court has recognised that noncitizens in the US are entitled to due process protections. But disputes continue over how bond hearings must be conducted and who bears the burden of proof.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
Good to see the courts upholding due process. Many of our people go there for work and a better life. They shouldn't be treated like criminals just for immigration issues. The government must prove danger, not the other way around. That's fair.
D
David E
As an American reading this, I'm glad our courts are intervening. The immigration system is broken and too often, people's basic rights get ignored in detention. This is a step in the right direction for everyone, not just Indian nationals.
A
Aditya G
While I'm happy for those getting relief, we must also be honest. Some people do try to misuse the system. The article mentions not all petitions were granted. The courts are doing their job—separating genuine cases from others. We should respect that process.
S
Shreya B
My cousin was in a similar situation last year. The stress on the family was unbearable. These rulings give hope. The phrase "clear and convincing evidence" is key—it shouldn't be easy to lock someone up without proof. More power to the judges who see this.
K
Karthik V
It's a complex legal issue about sections 1225 and 1226. The courts are finally clarifying the mess. But let's not forget, the root problem is the extremely long wait times for immigration hearings. That's what leads to this "prolonged detention." The system needs fixing from the ground up.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50