File photo. / IANS

 A U.S. federal court has ordered immigration authorities to provide a bond hearing to an Indian national detained in Pennsylvania, ruling that he is entitled to judicial review of his custody because he was arrested inside the United States and is not a new border arrival.

In a detailed memorandum opinion issued Jan. 9, U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown of the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a habeas corpus petition filed by Lovedeep Singh, a 26-year-old Indian citizen, who has been held at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center while his immigration appeal remains pending.

ALSO READ: Trump administration has revoked over 100,000 visas

“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,” the judge said, ordering authorities to provide a hearing before a neutral immigration judge by Jan. 16, 2026.

Section 1225(b)(2) applies to people arriving at the U.S. border and seeking entry. If immigration officers determine that the person is not clearly eligible to enter, the law requires automatic detention during removal proceedings, with no provision for a bond hearing. The section is primarily used for new arrivals, not individuals already living in the United States.

By contrast, under Section 1226(a), immigration authorities may detain or release a person while removal proceedings continue, and the individual has the right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Release may be granted on bond or other conditions.

At the center of the case was a dispute over which section of U.S. immigration law governs Singh’s detention. The government argued that he was subject to mandatory detention under a provision that applies to people seeking admission to the United States and does not allow bond hearings. Singh contended that the provision applies only to individuals arriving at the border and that, because he has lived in the U.S. for years, his detention should be reviewable by a judge.

The court agreed with Singh. Judge Brown said the mandatory detention statute applies to people “seeking admission” at a port of entry, not to noncitizens already living inside the United States. Singh, the court noted, had been physically present in the country for more than six years and was not attempting to enter the U.S. when he was taken into custody.

Court records show that Singh entered the United States in April 2019 at the southwest border and was later released on a $24,000 bond. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied those applications in July 2022 and ordered him removed to India. Singh appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which automatically stayed his removal while the appeal is pending.

Singh was re-detained in July 2025 after visiting an FBI office to seek protection for his girlfriend, whom he said was receiving threatening messages. Federal officials contacted immigration authorities, who interviewed Singh, canceled his bond, and placed him in custody pending the outcome of his appeal.

The government argued that Singh must remain detained without a bond hearing, citing a 2025 policy change that treats certain noncitizens already living in the U.S. as “applicants for admission.” That interpretation was later adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Judge Brown rejected that argument, saying the plain language of the statute does not support treating long-term U.S. residents as new arrivals. The court also cited Supreme Court precedent that draws a clear legal distinction between individuals at the border and those already inside the country.

The judge noted that U.S. immigration law contains a separate provision governing people already present in the country, under which detention is discretionary and subject to review by an immigration judge. Under that provision, detainees have the right to seek release on bond while their cases proceed.

While granting Singh the right to a bond hearing, the court declined to order his immediate release and refused to bar the government from transferring him to another detention facility. The judge said the only relief warranted under the law was a bond hearing.

Read more on NewIndiaAbroad