Washington, Jan 13 (NationPress) - A federal court in the United States has mandated immigration officials to conduct a bond hearing for an Indian national who is currently detained in Pennsylvania. The ruling emphasizes that he is eligible for judicial review of his custody as he was arrested within the US and does not qualify as a new border arrival.

In a comprehensive memorandum issued on January 9, US Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown from the Western District of Pennsylvania approved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Lovedeep Singh, a 26-year-old Indian national, who has been held at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center while his immigration appeal is still in progress.

“The Court determines that, since Singh's detention falls under § 1226(a) instead of § 1225(b)(2), the Government is required to provide him with a bond hearing,” the judge stated, directing authorities to arrange a hearing before an impartial immigration judge by January 16, 2026.

Section 1225(b)(2) pertains to individuals arriving at the US border seeking entry. If immigration officials conclude that the individual does not clearly qualify for entry, the law mandates automatic detention during removal proceedings, with no bond hearing available under this section. This provision is primarily applicable to new arrivals rather than individuals already residing in the US.

In contrast, Section 1226(a) allows immigration authorities to either detain or release individuals while removal proceedings are ongoing. Under this section, individuals are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge, where release on bond or other conditions may be granted.

The core of the case revolved around which segment of US immigration law applies to Singh's detention. The government asserted that he fell under mandatory detention laws meant for individuals applying for admission to the US, thus denying bond hearings. However, Singh argued that this law is only relevant to those arriving at the border and that, having lived in the US for several years, his detention should be subject to judicial review.

The court sided with Singh, with Judge Brown stating that the mandatory detention statute is applicable to individuals seeking admission at a port of entry, not to noncitizens already residing in the United States. The court noted that Singh had been physically present in the country for more than six years and was not attempting to enter the US at the time of his apprehension.

Records indicate that Singh entered the US in April 2019 at the southwestern border and was subsequently released on a $24,000 bond. He had filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge rejected these applications in July 2022, ordering his removal to India, but Singh appealed this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which automatically paused his removal during the appeal process.

Singh was re-detained in July 2025 after he visited an FBI office seeking protection for his girlfriend, who had been receiving threatening messages. Federal officials contacted immigration authorities, leading to an interview with Singh, the cancellation of his bond, and his subsequent detention pending the appeal's outcome.

The government maintained that Singh should remain detained without a bond hearing, referring to a 2025 policy change that categorizes certain noncitizens already living in the US as “applicants for admission.” This interpretation was eventually adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Judge Brown dismissed this perspective, asserting that the clear language of the statute does not endorse treating long-term US residents as new arrivals. The court also referenced Supreme Court precedents that distinguish between individuals at the border and those already in the country.

The judge highlighted that US immigration law includes a separate provision for individuals already present in the country, under which detention is discretionary and subject to judicial review. This provision allows detainees to request release on bond while their cases progress.

While granting Singh the right to a bond hearing, the court did not mandate his immediate release and declined to prevent the government from transferring him to another detention facility. The judge concluded that the only relief legally warranted was a bond hearing.