District of New Jersey • 3:26-cv-07435

#1

Jun 22, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17563206.), filed by SANDEEP GILL.(SODHI, SAVINDER) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#2

Jun 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER. Respondents are hereby enjoined from transferring Petitioner from New Jersey pending further Order of the Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 6/22/2026. (ps) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

Jun 22, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Georgette Castner. (ps)

Jun 22, 2026

Notice of Judicial Preferences

Jun 22, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Jun 22, 2026

Notice of Judicial Preferences. Click here for the Judge's Individual Procedure Requirements. (jjc, )

Jun 22, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#3

Jun 24, 2026

Order to Answer

#4

Jun 25, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Jul 07, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#6

Jul 13, 2026

Brief

#7

Jul 27, 2026

Letter

#8

Aug 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter is before the Court on the Petitioner's petition (Petition) for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1 ), Respondents' response to the Petition (ECF No. 5 ), and Petitioner's reply (ECF No. 6 ). In a prior habeas proceeding filed by Petitioner, on April 15, 2026, the Court entered a Text Order stating that "Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires an opportunity to seek bond," and ordering that, "[i]n accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Text Order, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an [immigration judge ("IJ")] who shall assess whether he presents a flight risk or a danger to the community, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8), (d)(1)." (No. 26-3960. ECF No. 4 (citations omitted) (emphasis omitted).) On April 23, 2026, an IJ conducted a bond hearing and denied release on bond on the grounds that Petitioner has failed to show that he is not a flight risk, and the Court accordingly ordered the prior habeas proceeding closed. (No. 26-3960, ECF No. 6 -1 at 1; ECF No. 7 .) In the present matter, Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that bond was denied "despite overwhelming evidence of his compliance, community ties, lack of criminal history, and pending meritorious asylum claim" and that "[n]o individualized determination has been made that he poses a danger to the community or a flight risk that cannot be mitigated by lesser conditions of release." (ECF No. 1 Para. 57.) Under Third Circuit case law, this Court may review whether a bond hearing is fundamentally unfair and thus violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Ghanem v. Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022) (not precedential). "In a fundamentally fair bond hearing, due process has three essential elements. 'An alien: (1) is entitled to fact finding based on a record produced before the decision maker and disclosed to him or her; (2) must be allowed to make arguments on his or her own behalf; and (3) has the right to an individualized determination of his [or her] interests.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Kamara v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 420 F.3d 202, 211 (3d Cir. 2005)). In its June 24, 2026 Memorandum and Order, the Court ordered Respondents to file "a full and complete answer" to the Petition, "which responds to the factual and legal allegations of the Petition" and to "electronically file with the answer certified copies of the administrative record and all other documents relevant to petitioner's claims." (ECF No. 3 at 3-4.) However, Respondents have failed to produce a recording or transcript of the bond hearing. Furthermore, Respondents have not addressed or provided the specific factual basis (if any) for the IJ's conclusion that Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of establishing that he is not a flight risk. See Chen v. Soto, No. 25-18559, 2026 WL 1475282, at *4 (D.N.J. May 26, 2026) ("A bond hearing is individualized 'if it is not so arbitrary that it would offend fundamental tenets of due process' and 'if there is a discernible rational basis for the underlying administrative decision, and the immigration judge applies the correct legal standards, that suffices.'" (quoting Zheng v. Rokosky, 826 F. Supp. 3d 545, 555 (D.N.J. 2026))). This Court is unable to determine whether the bond hearing was fundamentally unfair without the production of a complete recording or transcript of the disputed hearing, and Respondents have failed to "respond[ ] to the factual and legal allegations of the Petition" as to the fairness of the bond hearing. See Mistry v. Rokosky, No. 25-17647, 2026 WL 1133371, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2026) (pointing out the deficiencies in the respondents' response to the petitioner's assertions that he was not afforded a constitutionally adequate and fair bond hearing). The Court declines to order a second bond hearing, and it instead concludes that the appropriate remedy is immediate release from immigration detention. See Zheng, 826 F. Supp. 3d at 560-63 (concluding that immediate release and not a second bond hearing is the appropriate remedy where, among other things, the court had ordered the respondents to provide the petitioner with a bond hearing because the petitioner was subject to detention under § 1226(a) and the bond hearing provided was fundamentally unfair). Accordingly, the Petition (ECF No. 1 ) is GRANTED. Within twenty-four (24) hours of the time of entry of this Text Order, Respondents SHALL RELEASE Petitioner from immigration detention, subject to the prior terms of supervision, if any, in effect at the time Petitioner was detained, and provide written notice to the Court of Petitioner's release from custody. So Ordered by Judge Georgette Castner on 8/11/2026. (jmh) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

Aug 11, 2026

Text Order

#9

Aug 12, 2026

Letter

#10

Aug 13, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court previously ordered that Respondents release Petitioner. (ECF No. 8 .) Petitioner has now been released. (ECF No. 9 .) Having granted Petitioner all available relief, no further issues remain for adjudication. The Court LIFTS its Order (ECF No. 2 ) prohibiting Petitioner's transfer from the District of New Jersey. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this matter. So Ordered by Judge Georgette Castner on 8/13/2026. (jmh) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

Aug 13, 2026

Order of Dismissal AND Text Order