US courts scrutinise immigration detention, delays
Three US federal courts have issued rulings this week questioning how immigration authorities detain noncitizens and handle immigration benefit cases, granting partial relief to Indian nationals or allowing their lawsuits to move forward.
Washington: Three US federal courts have issued rulings this week questioning how immigration authorities detain noncitizens and handle immigration benefit cases, granting partial relief to Indian nationals or allowing their lawsuits to move forward.
In Michigan, a federal judge ordered immigration authorities to give an Indian asylum seeker a bond hearing or release him from custody. The US District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled that Harjot Singh, held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since July 2025, was being unlawfully detained.
Singh entered the United States in May 2022 and later applied for asylum. He was paroled into the country because of a lack of detention space and later received work authorisation and a Social Security number.
ICE arrested him during a routine check-in.
The court said Singh should not be held under mandatory detention rules. It ruled that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections. The judge ordered ICE to hold a bond hearing within five business days or release him immediately.
Follow for more details: munsifdaily.com
In Washington, a separate federal judge allowed part of a lawsuit by Divya Venigalla, an Indian citizen, to proceed against the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Venigalla challenged the agency’s handling of her appeal after the denial of an immigrant investor green card petition.
Venigalla filed a timely appeal, but it was rejected because it lacked a signature. She later refiled the appeal with the missing page attached. The agency dismissed the second filing as untimely without addressing her argument that the deadline should be equitably tolled.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed her mandamus claims but ruled that her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act could go forward. The judge said the agency may have violated the law by failing to consider her equitable tolling argument at all, even if the final decision remains discretionary.
In Missouri, a federal court issued a mixed ruling in a case brought by Harsh Kumar Patel, an Indian national seeking relief over delays in his U visa-related applications. Patel applied for a U non-immigrant status after being the victim of an armed robbery.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Patel’s claim challenging delays in a discretionary “bona fide determination”, saying Congress barred courts from reviewing such decisions. But the court allowed his claims over delays in placement on the U visa waiting list to proceed.
The judge ruled that federal regulations require immigration authorities to place eligible applicants on a waiting list when visas are unavailable due to annual caps. Because that step is mandatory, the court said it has jurisdiction to review claims alleging unlawful delay or withholding.
