Washington, Dec 30 (NationPress) A federal judge in California has instructed US immigration authorities to provide a rationale for the detention of an Indian national after deeming his legal challenge credible enough to advance.

The directive was issued on December 24 by the US District Court for the Southern District of California, which requested the government to respond to a habeas corpus petition lodged by Naveen, an Indian citizen disputing the legal grounds for his ongoing immigration detention.

In his ruling, the judge indicated that the petition demonstrates significant potential merit and should not be dismissed prematurely. According to federal regulations, a habeas petition can progress as long as it presents a legally recognizable claim and does not clearly indicate that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.

Court documents reveal that Naveen, a citizen of India, entered the United States on April 18, 2023, from Mexico without inspection. He was apprehended by Customs and Border Protection soon after crossing the border and was subsequently released on an Order of Release on Recognizance.

On the same date, immigration officials issued him a Notice to Appear in immigration court, alleging that he is an alien present in the United States without admission or parole.

The petition states that Naveen was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on November 3, 2025, during a pre-scheduled ICE check-in. ICE has determined that he is subject to mandatory detention under section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, thus making him ineligible for bond release.

Naveen contests this interpretation, asserting that his detention should be governed by section 1226(a) of the statute, which permits release on bond or conditional parole while immigration proceedings are ongoing.

Judge Andrew G. Schopler noted that the challenge meets the required threshold at this phase of the case. Citing recent appellate guidance, the court highlighted that summary dismissal is inappropriate “as long as a petition has any potential merit.”

The judge also referenced a growing body of federal court decisions nationwide that have scrutinized similar detention disputes. Many of these cases have found that petitioners were likely to prevail on the merits or have granted relief after determining that section 1226(a), rather than section 1225(b)(2), applies to detention in comparable situations.

The order referred to several analogous decisions from federal courts in New York, California, Nevada, and Washington. It noted that a substantial majority of opinions addressing this issue have favored detainees or challenged the government’s interpretation of the statute.