A federal judge in California has found potential merit in an Indian national’s immigration challenge, directing U.S. officials to justify his detention.
WASHINGTON, DC — A federal judge in California has ordered U.S. immigration officials to provide justification for the detention of an Indian national after determining that his legal challenge has enough credibility to proceed.
The ruling was issued on December 24 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which instructed the government to respond to a habeas corpus petition filed by Naveen, an Indian citizen contesting the legal grounds for his ongoing immigration detention.
In his order, Judge Andrew G. Schopler stated that the petition demonstrates sufficient potential merit and should not be dismissed prematurely. Under federal regulations, a habeas petition can advance as long as it presents a legally cognizable claim and does not clearly indicate that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Court documents reveal that Naveen entered the United States on April 18, 2023, crossing the border from Mexico without inspection. He was apprehended shortly after by Customs and Border Protection and was later released on an Order of Release on Recognizance. On the same day, immigration authorities issued him a Notice to Appear in immigration court, charging him as an alien present in the United States without admission or parole.
According to the petition, Naveen was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on November 3, 2025, during a 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, rendering him ineligible for release on bond.
Naveen disputes this interpretation, arguing that his detention should instead be governed by section 1226(a) of the statute, which permits release on bond or conditional parole while immigration proceedings are ongoing.
Judge Schopler noted that the challenge meets the necessary threshold at this stage of the case. Citing recent appellate guidance, he emphasized that summary dismissal is not appropriate as long as a petition possesses any potential merit. The judge also referenced a growing body of federal court rulings nationwide that have examined similar detention disputes.
In many of these cases, courts have found that petitioners were likely to succeed on the merits or have granted relief after determining that section 1226(a), rather than section 1225(b)(2), governs detention under comparable circumstances. The order highlighted several similar decisions from federal courts in New York, California, Nevada, and Washington, noting that a significant majority of opinions addressing the issue have favored detainees or questioned the government’s interpretation of the statute.
This case illustrates the ongoing complexities surrounding immigration detention and the legal interpretations that can significantly impact individuals’ lives. As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome may set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
According to IANS, the implications of this ruling could resonate beyond Naveen’s situation, potentially influencing the treatment of other detainees facing similar circumstances.